Easiest way to move a car with the handbrake on?

Anan1 · 08-03-2012 5:38pm

Stark wrote: »

If you are going to have clamping in effect, you have to have clear signage to indicate that that is the case and where it is and isn't okay to park.

Of course, the system has to be transparent and fair to everyone.

Stark wrote: »

I suppose you'd defend these guys: http://www.eveshamobserver.co.uk/2012/02/21/news-Clamper-jailed-for-defrauding-motorists-30733.html with "Sure if they couldn't see the signs on the high walls, they shouldn't have parked there".

Why do you suppose that?

Stark · 08-03-2012 5:43pm

Anan1 wrote: »

It sounds like you are, TBH. You're putting the onus on the parking space owner to defend their space, which IMO is wrong.That's you - many people automatically take the side of the person clamped, with no concern for the victim. A simple test of a person's attitudes is whether they'd support regulated clamping with a fully independent appeals process.

Personally I'd have no problem with that. But we're some way away from that in Ireland and several of the companies operating here behave no better than many who were jailed in Britain based on my experiences.

listermint · 08-03-2012 5:44pm

Anan1 wrote: »

It sounds like you are, TBH. You're putting the onus on the parking space owner to defend their space, which IMO is wrong.That's you - many people automatically take the side of the person clamped, with no concern for the victim. A simple test of a person's attitudes is whether they'd support regulated clamping with a fully independent appeals process.

You use terms like 'defend' and victim.

This is core the the problem, Everything that you say is typical of anti community. What ever happened to having a quick word with someone rather than jumping on the defensive of 'rights' all the time.

Clamping is an offensive action, Its unnecessary. I think youll find 99% of people are actually reasonable. We need to ditch attitudes such as yours where developments are concerned if we are ever to get back to some form of normal residential society.

You'd prefer to promote the over the fence attitude. Its just not on.

Anan1 · 08-03-2012 5:52pm

Stark wrote: »

Personally I'd have no problem with that. But we're some way away from that in Ireland and several of the companies operating here behave no better than many who were jailed in Britain based on my experiences.

That's why we need regulated clamping, with an independent appeals process. I'm going to ask you again to explain this:

Stark wrote: »

I suppose you'd defend these guys: http://www.eveshamobserver.co.uk/2012/02/21/news-Clamper-jailed-for-defrauding-motorists-30733.html with "Sure if they couldn't see the signs on the high walls, they shouldn't have parked there".

@ listermint - When did taking someone else's space become pro-community? It's offensive, it's anti-community, and people have a right to be protected from it. You can dress this up whatever way you want, but the whole point of this thread is that some people think it's ok to just take over the OP's private space for days. Do you think it's ok? Do you think the OP should just suck it up and maybe leave a nice note? Because that's how it's sounding.

listermint · 08-03-2012 5:58pm

Anan1 wrote: »

@ listermint - When did taking someone else's space become pro-community? It's offensive, it's anti-community, and people have a right to be protected from it. You can dress this up whatever way you want, but the whole point of this thread is that some people think it's ok to just take over the OP's private space for days. Do you think it's ok? Do you think the OP should just suck it up and maybe leave a nice note? Because that's how it's sounding.

Speaking to the vehicles owner is the best approach.

'Hi sorry you are parking in my spot. I paid alot of cash for it when i moved in'

I think you'll find this is a better approach.

Your the one using terms such as 'defend' 'protect' 'victim'. Far from being amusing its quite sad that there are people with this sort of attitude banging around these days.

Ridiculous siege mentality, how do you cope day to day if this is the type of worries you have?

Often the best approach is the civil explanatory one. People arent evil.

Stark · 08-03-2012 5:58pm

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm going to ask you again to explain this:

It's the "if they were unclear, they shouldn't have parked there" attitude. It should be the clamper's responsibility to make it clear if certain spaces are allocated spaces or not. If they're leaving spaces unmarked and preying on visitors' ignorance to make their money, then they're no better than thugs. I had to park under the YMCA gym the other week. Signs up saying "clamping in operation" and numbered spaces but no indication of which spaces it was okay for me as a gym user to park in. Had no idea if I would come back to find my car tampered with or not.

listermint wrote:

Speaking to the vehicles owner is the best approach.

'Hi sorry you are parking in my spot. I paid alot of cash for it when i moved in'

I think you'll find this is a better approach.

Your the one using terms such as 'defend' 'protect' 'victim'. Far from being amusing its quite sad that there are people with this sort of attitude banging around these days.

Ridiculous siege mentality, how do you cope day to day if this is the type of worries you have?

Often the best approach is the civil explanatory one. People arent evil.

Tbh, a lot of people are ***** and will require harsher action than simply a word in the ear. But people should also be wary of using a tiger to catch a mouse.

listermint · 08-03-2012 6:01pm

Stark wrote: »

It's the "if they were unclear, they shouldn't have parked there" attitude. It should be the clamper's responsibility to make it clear if certain spaces are allocated spaces or not. If they're leaving spaces unmarked and preying on visitors' ignorance, then they're no better than thugs.

Tbh, a lot of people are ***** and will require harsher action than simply a word in the ear. But people should also be wary of using a tiger to catch a mouse.

i dont believe he is refering to clampers in this instance, its in relation to un monitored spaces in a complex with no signage to indicated anything.

Anan1 · 08-03-2012 6:02pm

listermint wrote: »

Speaking to the vehicles owner is the best approach.

'Hi sorry you are parking in my spot. I paid alot of cash for it when i moved in'

I think you'll find this is a better approach.

Your the one using terms such as 'defend' 'protect' 'victim'. Far from being amusing its quite sad that there are people with this sort of attitude banging around these days.

Ridiculous siege mentality, how do you cope day to day if this is the type of worries you have?

Often the best approach is the civil explanatory one. People arent evil.

In principle I actually like your attitude, but I just don't think that it'll work in anything but the closest of closed communities. Many modern apartment blocks have hundreds of units, and people don't see an empty space as belonging to an actual person with their own life, priorities, obligations etc. The offenders move around from space to space, and they simply don't think about the effect they're having on others. Your way just won't work with these people.

Stark · 08-03-2012 6:04pm

listermint wrote: »

i dont believe he is refering to clampers in this instance, its in relation to un monitored spaces in a complex with no signage to indicated anything.

Well in that case, the first step should definitely be to get some sort of signs/markings up to indicate which spaces are owned by apartment owners before starting with clamping.

Anan1 · 08-03-2012 6:07pm

Stark wrote: »

It's the "if they were unclear, they shouldn't have parked there" attitude.

I was referring to the moral angle there. When clamping is involved then everything has to be crystal clear, properly signposted, etc etc. The only people being clamped should be those who knowingly broke the rules.

Stark · 08-03-2012 6:11pm

Okay but that's not what you actually said.

Anan1 wrote:

His point remains valid, though - if one doesn't know that one has the right to park there then one doesn't.

"Doesn't know" is not the same as "knowingly". This attitude which is quite pervasive in Ireland is part of the reason why unregulated clampers are allowed operate with impunity and why innocent people may have to resort to angle grinders to regain control of their property.

Anan1 · 08-03-2012 6:19pm

Stark wrote: »

Okay but that's not what you actually said.

"Doesn't know" is not the same as "knowingly". This attitude which is quite pervasive in Ireland is part of the reason why unregulated clampers are allowed operate with impunity and why innocent people may have to resort to angle grinders to regain control of their property.

I'll give you a simple example. If a car park has a sign at the entrance saying 'Private residents parking only' then for a visitor to just take a space without ensuring that it's a guest space/that it belongs to the person that they're visiting is IMO wrong. If you don't know that you've a right to park there then you don't.

However, if you're going to enforce clamping then you have to cross every t and dot every i. The idea needs to be to deter people by making the consequences clear rather than to catch people. If you know you'll get caught then you most likely won't take the p1ss.

Discodog · 08-03-2012 6:20pm

The OP should send a recorded delivery letter to the management company making it clear that he will hold them responsible for any time that he is unable to park. He should charge them the cost of alternative parking plus an additional amount to cover his inconvenience per day & deduct this from his management fees.

Pataman · 08-03-2012 6:59pm

Put 3/4 roofing nails under each tyre. He wont park there again

savagecabbages · 08-03-2012 7:13pm

Discodog wrote: »

The OP should send a recorded delivery letter to the management company making it clear that he will hold them responsible for any time that he is unable to park. He should charge them the cost of alternative parking plus an additional amount to cover his inconvenience per day & deduct this from his management fees.

+1
I'd be more inclined to blame the management company who the OP is paying money to in order for them to maintain his/her space. They allow this to happen repeatedly, and the OP isn't getting the use of the space which has been paid for.

alias no.9 · 08-03-2012 8:47pm

savagecabbages wrote: »

+1
I'd be more inclined to blame the management company who the OP is paying money to in order for them to maintain his/her space. They allow this to happen repeatedly, and the OP isn't getting the use of the space which has been paid for.

The management company may or may not have done their job regarding signage and access control, but one thing they definitely didn't do was park the god damned car there. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Why the need to always pass the buck and blame someone else?

savagecabbages · 09-03-2012 12:24am

I'm not passing the buck to anyone, but if I was paying someone money to do a job, and they failed utterly to do it, I'd be pretty annoyed with them...

What do you expect the OP to do? Put a note on the guys car asking him to be more responsible in future?

Tragedy · 09-03-2012 1:48am

Eh, damaging his car in any way was never(and imho is never) an option. Parking like a prick doesn't excuse damaging his property!

It's a gated underground car park with I'd estimate ~150 spaces, plenty of private parking signs underground.

As for community spirit, it's a split development with terraced townhouses and apartment blocks. The only visitor parking is in front of the townhouses where every 2nd or 3rd spot is unnumbered and for visitor parking (as per the development plan and planning permission).

When we first moved in 3 years ago, I used to park on the road across from the houses (no double yellows or parking issues back then, and my brother took the spot underground). Even though I was the only car that would park on a 210m stretch of road and always parked carefully so as to not ever inconvenience people, I would regularly get notes on my windscreen telling me not to park there from residents of the houses.
So I started leaving the car at my parents most of the time and occasionally parking in visitor spots so as to not offend their delicate sensibilities.

I started getting more vitriolic notes telling me that the visitor spots were not visitor spots, they were spots for the houses (despite being unnumbered, despite on the planning application being visitor parking for all).

Then I started getting notes that made me think if I kept parking my car in visitor spots, it was a question of when and not if it might get damaged.

So please, don't lecture me about closed community, community spirit, or people having rights to my parking spot

All I want to do is park my car in my spot, nothing more.

Buffman · 09-03-2012 2:42am

Sounds like a right pain to be putting up with OP.

As for the

Easiest way to move a car with the handbrake on?

I'd have to say using one of these would probably be the easiest way.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWgFZur7LPmeN0EmKAuBjCgn97cYTez12gs1LVpnaBdKgco9FP

carbon nanotube · 09-03-2012 5:12am

johnos1984 wrote: »

Whatever you do I'd like pictures and a video.

Maybe even a picture of how it is now

in bangkok crowded multi storey parks, the cars are literally left in neutral..

push cars around at will

crazy.

listermint · 09-03-2012 10:20am

Tragedy wrote: »

I started getting more vitriolic notes telling me that the visitor spots were not visitor spots, they were spots for the houses (despite being unnumbered, despite on the planning application being visitor parking for all).

Then I started getting notes that made me think if I kept parking my car in visitor spots, it was a question of when and not if it might get damaged.

So please, don't lecture me about closed community, community spirit, or people having rights to my parking spot All I want to do is park my car in my spot, nothing more.

This is all fair enough, But at the end of the day. That person im pretty sure it would have only been 1, head case has no right to put notes on your car. As you stated the planning application stated visitor parking only. So lets for instance say there was clampers back then, wouldnt the same idiot just be ringing them up all the time to have your car clamped?

You always get 1 tool anywhere you go, notes or clamping would be their weapon of choice. I dont think anyone can combat 1 idiot who thinks they are in the right until confronted.

Anan1 · 09-03-2012 10:22am

listermint wrote: »

This is all fair enough, But at the end of the day. That person im pretty sure it would have only been 1, head case has no right to put notes on your car. As you stated the planning application stated visitor parking only. So lets for instance say there was clampers back then, wouldnt the same idiot just be ringing them up all the time to have your car clamped?

You always get 1 tool anywhere you go, notes or clamping would be their weapon of choice. I dont think anyone can combat 1 idiot who thinks they are in the right until confronted.

Sure you can - a proper system would have visitor parking spots clearly marked as such.

alias no.9 · 09-03-2012 10:55am

savagecabbages wrote: »

I'm not passing the buck to anyone, but if I was paying someone money to do a job, and they failed utterly to do it, I'd be pretty annoyed with them...

Tragedy wrote: »

It's a gated underground car park with I'd estimate ~150 spaces, plenty of private parking signs underground.

It would seem that the only thing the management company failed to do was take action after the fact of this prick parking in the OP's spot. Without clamping, short of someone standing sentry on the spot, what else could they have done to prevent this?

savagecabbages wrote: »

What do you expect the OP to do? Put a note on the guys car asking him to be more responsible in future?

I would expect the OP to do nothing short of having this prick clamped, full stop. The time for responsible actions was when he was chosing to park in the OP's space, after that it's time for the consequences for those actions.

To prevent this crap in future, it will require the OP to at least attend Management Company AGM's to push the issue maybe even seek nomination as a Director. If the Apartments and Townhouses come under the same Management Company, it would be easy enough to regain control of the unmarked Visitors Spaces for the wider community as long as the Town House owners are not contractually entitled to them.

RiderOnTheStorm · 09-03-2012 11:14am

if you plan to put biscuit tin lids under the tyres, and move it. Then why not move it out of the building and leave it 'parked' at the side of the street.

whats the latest anyway? did you move it? plant dasies on it? spray it with hard core jungle rap lyrics?

Anan1 · 09-03-2012 11:55am

RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »

if you plan to put biscuit tin lids under the tyres, and move it. Then why not move it out of the building and leave it 'parked' at the side of the street.

whats the latest anyway? did you move it? plant dasies on it? spray it with hard core jungle rap lyrics?

See post#70

Tragedy · 09-03-2012 5:23pm

listermint wrote: »

This is all fair enough, But at the end of the day. That person im pretty sure it would have only been 1, head case has no right to put notes on your car. As you stated the planning application stated visitor parking only. So lets for instance say there was clampers back then, wouldnt the same idiot just be ringing them up all the time to have your car clamped?

You always get 1 tool anywhere you go, notes or clamping would be their weapon of choice. I dont think anyone can combat 1 idiot who thinks they are in the right until confronted.

The residents committee for the terraced housing got together and hired a solicitor to try assert their collective ownership over the visitor spots.

They haven't got anywhere 3 years later, but they're still claiming that they are theirs and telling anyone who parks in them that "solicitors are involved" as if that lends credence.

listermint · 09-03-2012 5:34pm

Tragedy wrote: »

The residents committee for the terraced housing got together and hired a solicitor to try assert their collective ownership over the visitor spots.

They haven't got anywhere 3 years later, but they're still claiming that they are theirs and telling anyone who parks in them that "solicitors are involved" as if that lends credence.

Dangerous residents commitees are dangerous which comes back to my original point. Its the few that come in and think they can lay down the law for the majority. i.e. a few pox bottles think clamping is a good idea.

This is reflected by your current predicament with visitors spots....

Tragedy · 09-03-2012 5:48pm

listermint wrote: »

Dangerous residents commitees are dangerous which comes back to my original point. Its the few that come in and think they can lay down the law for the majority. i.e. a few pox bottles think clamping is a good idea.

This is reflected by your current predicament with visitors spots....

No, the majority of the residents of the houses are of the same opinion. Dude, seriously, you may have a point about community spirit etc in general, but in this case you don't so please stop trying to fight it

listermint · 09-03-2012 6:01pm

Tragedy wrote: »

No, the majority of the residents of the houses are of the same opinion. Dude, seriously, you may have a point about community spirit etc in general, but in this case you don't so please stop trying to fight it

im not trying to fight anything?

Im basing this on all the facts youve provided so far.

You live in a large resident complex with varying buildings, according to you there is visitor spots on a section of the development that were earmarked as visitors spots when the development opened.

now you have a bunch of chancers in one block ganging up on the remaining residents claiming ownership of this stretch of spots.

Correct so far?

I dont believe im wrong. Celtic tiger w**kerism at its best. Badly designed developments and poor detail given on whom owns what, hence a solicitor is involved.

Easiest way to move a car with the handbrake on?

Comments