Most Car Clamping completly illegal

AndrewMc

Is it possible that (a) they are actually allowed to clamp you on private property, but (b) if you can "wriggle" out of the clamp without damaging it, you're in the clear? So long as you leave the clamp where it was, you didn't steal it (although I'd take photos in case somebody else came along and knicked it later...).

I would expect that wriggling out of the clamp is illegal when clamped by the council or Gardaí, though.

Mitch Connor

Anan1 wrote:

Is this how you felt when you returned to your car to find it clamped? Angry to the point where you forget how to spell even the simplest of words?Perhaps i'm not the first to suggest this, but might you not benefit from some anger management counselling? You might also consider that the people providing a carpark have a perfect moral right to say who can and cannot use it. What you did may not have been illegal, but it was wrong.


Out of interest, how do you feel when people steal from you?

I went to WIT for 4 years, and the car park is a joke. People park all over the place and i have only seen a few clamped (they were blocking fire exits). Unless this is what the OP was doing, fair play. There isn't enough parking in the first place, then they bring in more students!

Anan1

overdriver wrote:

No, I'm saying I've seen worse spelling here, and pulling someone on their spelling is no way to either put your point across or win an argument.

I wouldn't usually point out that someone can't spell. What's interesting here, though, is that the OP's spelling was fine until he/she read my post. Put that together with the rant and you have a clear problem with anger management. Given that this thread is about the removal of clamps, I feel this point to be entirely relevant.

kippy

Interesting.
But I'd like to hear the full facts of the judgement/case and possibly ask for some opinion over on the Legal Forum on it-as there are a number of pretty valid points (above) on precidence and what exactly happened here.

The main argument being put forth above is the lack of laws supporting their clamping of cars which are parked without a permit or not parked in a marked parking space and this, based on the above, is limited to private car parks only, as public ones are governed by the local by laws.
If this is the case - are the speed limits and speed bumps which are also in many private car parks not backed with any laws? I suppose it the Gardai that police this so they would have rights in this instance but a private operator would have no rights to clamp cars.

In my opinion, clamping, is overall a GOOD thing so long as the clampers dont abuse their position.

Gregor Samsa

Anan1 wrote:

Read my post again. S-l-o-w-l-y. Repeat until you get it, it's not complicated.;)

I'm very sorry. I've re-read you post, and I'd like to humbly withdraw my previous comment and replace it with this measured response:

I do.

The OP was acquitted of theft in Court. He shouldn't have to put up with self-righteous comments that question his moral and ethical integerity.

egan007

Anan1

i don't know what your problem is - It was proved in court it's therefore not illegal

Your daddy a clamper?

Anan1

phutyle wrote:

I'm very sorry. I've re-read you post, and I'd like to humbly withdraw my previous comment and replace it with this measured response:

I do.

The OP was acquitted of theft in Court. He shouldn't have to put up with self-righteous comments that question his moral and ethical integerity.

Moral and ethical integrity? If you read the OP's posts (s-l-o-w-l-y;) ), you'll see that he's already admitted that he "was parked where he shouldn't have been".

Anan1

egan007 wrote:

Anan1

i don't know what your problem is - It was proved in court it's therefore not illegal

Your daddy a clamper?

Where did I say that it was? Read first, then type. And yes, Kevin, my daddy is a clamper.

overdriver

Anan1 wrote:

I wouldn't usually point out that someone can't spell. What's interesting here, though, is that the OP's spelling was fine until he/she read my post. Put that together with the rant and you have a clear problem with anger management. Given that this thread is about the removal of clamps, I feel this point to be entirely relevant.

C'mon, man, you're better ( usually) than that. It's a low blow at best. I could point out that there are no hyphens in "slowly" !

egan007

Anan1 wrote:

Where did I say that it was? Read first, then type. And yes, Kevin, my daddy is a clamper.

Anan1 wrote:

If stealing were legal would you do that too?

Seems to imply that you seem to think he did something illegal.
Thanks for the advice, How about you take the box of bees out of your knickers then type

Anan1

Anan1 wrote:

If stealing were legal would you do that too?

egan007 wrote:

Seems to imply that you seem to think he did something illegal.

Eh, no.

Anan1

overdriver wrote:

C'mon, man, you're better ( usually) than that. It's a low blow at best. I could point out that there are no hyphens in "slowly" !

If the guy just couldn't spell then i'd agree completely. And if he hadn't stooped so low then i'd have been able to hit higher.;)

Fey!

OP - fair dues for not giving in to them, but you may have just been lucky on the day. Were you being taken to court for theft of the clamp (which you returned top the Gardai by the looks of it), illegal removal of the clamp, illegal parking, trespassing????? And which of these was the "precedent" set for?

OT - Ana1 - any chance that for once you could stay on topic without reverting to the you-can't-spell argument? It sounds like something you'd hear in a national school playground.

Anan1

Fey! wrote:

OT - Ana1 - any chance that for once you could stay on topic without reverting to the you-can't-spell argument? It sounds like something you'd hear in a national school playground.

If you could take the time to actually read what I said you would see that my argument is that just because something is not illegal does not necessarily mean that it is right. There is no "you-can't-spell argument", I simply made the point that forgetting how to spell, in conjunction with the content of the OP's post directed at me, is indicative of an unhealthy level of anger.

testicle

Lorax wrote:

Dont think that would work on a wheel with hubcaps (which most have) ? Am I right there? Unless u smashed your hubcap..

Only cheap ass steel wheels have hubcaps :-)

Fey!

Anan1 wrote:

If you could take the time to actually read what I said you would see that my argument is that just because something is not illegal does not necessarily mean that it is right. There is no "you-can't-spell argument", I simply made the point that forgetting how to spell, in conjunction with the content of the OP's post directed at me, is indicative of an unhealthy level of anger.

Unfortunately, with the tangents you go off on, everybody soon begins to forget your original points. If you look at the last few posts directed toward you you will see this. So maybe you should try clear and simple.

OP - Sorry for the OT intrusion.

Anan1

Fey! wrote:

Unfortunately, with the tangents you go off on, everybody soon begins to forget your original points. If you look at the last few posts directed toward you you will see this. So maybe you should try clear and simple.

OP - Sorry for the OT intrusion.

Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you could simply ignore any of my posts which are not "clear and simple" enough for you from now on?

WhiteWashMan

can you all shut the fúck up and get on with the point of this thread.

and its not someone's spelling, the issue of theft, or whos daddy is a clamper.

normally, id ban a few people here, but im feeling in a good mood today. please dont ruin it becuase i will go back and ban people retorospectively.

i will take any further post here as acceptance of this.

and have a nice day

Seth Brundle

phutyle wrote:

I do.

The OP was acquitted of theft in Court. He shouldn't have to put up with being accused of it again here.

He has the right to defend himself alright but not to get abusive!

mazdafarl has got himself a 1 week ban for it!*

*done after reading whitewashman's post but then again Im not in a good mood like him!

cpoh1

kbannon wrote:

He has the right to defend himself alright but not to get abusive!

mazdafarl has got himself a 1 week ban for it!*

*done after reading whitewashman's post but then again Im not in a good mood like him!

To be honest with you, although mazdafari was more blatent in his attack, anan1 was just as petty, spiteful and malicious in his posts towards the op and deserved a ban too. After all he did ruin a decent thread.

Anan1

cpoh1 wrote:

To be honest with you, although mazdafari was more blatent in his attack, anan1 was just as petty, spiteful and malicious in his posts towards the op and deserved a ban too. After all he did ruin a decent thread.

How, by pointing out that what the OP did, while perhaps not illegal, was nonetheless wrong?

cpoh1

Anan1 wrote:

How, by pointing out that what the OP did, while perhaps not illegal, was nonetheless wrong?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, go stand in front of the mirror and gripe with yourself if thats what your interested in, this is a car forum.

Jocksy

Its disgusting that the college appointed this crowd and that they sougth to have a criminal conviction for stealing given to this student. That is sick beyond belief. Great info as well for all.

Unlike Anan with your pointless arguing. This isn't a spelling competition and you have made about 10 posts here all just arguing grammar and **** like that. If Ihad my way you'd be site banned here. People like you make this board so hard to bear at times.

Fey!

Does this mean that none of my questions from post #44 will be answered? I'm interested in this as street clamping in Galway is nearly a thing of the past but the harbour authority still do it (private ground).

DrChoda

no more trolling, let's reel this thread back on topic
If I understand correctly:
-parked in a no parking zone on a public access privately enforced car park
-car clamped, owner removes clamp, company attempt to charge owner with theft and possesion of stolen property
-car was clamped illegally according to OP's statement about judge's decision. Theft and related charges dismissed. Informs owner that he is entitled to go after company since what they did was illegal.

So, when the OP gets back from their 'week long vaction from boards', I am curious if this applies to all 'privately' run car parks, not affiliated with council?

Also, I think that the company should determine a legal way of penalizing illegally parked cars on their lot. If a clamp is not legal, then as a business, they should be aware of that before they start throwing clamps on cars.
I also do not think spelling has anything to do with this topic. I'm quite sure there is a forum somewhere else for that.
This isn't a question of morality, it is about legality.
If someone parks illegally, then there needs to be a penalty, and it MUST fall within the lines of the law. I think we all agree that parking in a no parking zone is wrong, however, it does not justify a company illegally penalizing the car owner.
It would be quite hypocritical to point a finger at the illegally parked car and turn your head when it is clamped illegally.

pleasedonotrollthispostAnan1,thankyou

briantwin

Well done to the OP for his pretty clever way of removing illegal clamps from cars. On another note to whoever Anon1 is....I can see now that your opinion and judgement of a person on an internet forum supercedes that of a district judge in waterford.

Seeing as the OP was found not guilty of theft and possession of stolen property charges and no further disciplinery action was taken via fine or otherwise i think its evident that the removal of the clamp was very low on the list of laws breached.
Also the fact that a counter claim can be made against the clampers goes to show that these "cowboys" are roaming around our fair nation clamping anyone they want. They also get to slap a nice little fine on the thing too.

So if you honestly think that removing a clamp once is worse than breaking the law everytime you clamp a car and then charging 90 euro's for its removal....lets just say...Stick to checking spelling, it doesn't require any rational thinking. Just a dictionary.

Peace

Brian

Guy:Incognito

Tauren wrote:

I went to WIT for 4 years, and the car park is a joke. People park all over the place and i have only seen a few clamped (they were blocking fire exits). Unless this is what the OP was doing, fair play. There isn't enough parking in the first place, then they bring in more students!

If you were in Dublin city centre and there was no parking left, what would you do? park in the middle of O'Connell street?

Theres no obligation to provide parking, if it's full it's full, that doesnt entitle people to make up their own parking spots.

Again i'll use someones garden as an example. If all th eparking spots on a road are gone, would you be ok with someone parkign in your garden?

egan007 wrote:

Seems to imply that you seem to think he did something illegal.

While not being illegal, he admitted to it being wrong.

Maybe it's down to morals?

Anan1

DrChoda wrote:

This isn't a question of morality, it is about legality.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Nor would you, I suspect, if you were the one being inconvenienced. Respect for the rights of others is at the core of any civilized society, even in the absence of applicable legislation. This is as true in motoring matters as it is elsewhere. If I park in a space that i'm not entitled to then someone else loses out.

DrChoda wrote:

pleasedonotrollthispostAnan1,thankyou

I am simply making a point that you might not agree with. I hardly think that's trolling, do you?

maidhc

Anan1 wrote:

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Nor would you, I suspect, if you were the one being inconvenienced. Respect for the rights of others is at the core of any civilized society, even in the absence of applicable legislation. This is as true in motoring matters as it is elsewhere. If I park in a space that i'm not entitled to then someone else loses out.

I am simply making a point that you might not agree with. I hardly think that's trolling, do you?

In fairness, high handed tactics by clampers are not exactly unheard of either.

In particular those operated privately cannot make any claim to enforcing any law, or having any authority over and above that which they get from the law of contract. They are, in effect, mercenaries!

Apart from parking in a disabled space, there is nothing immoral about parking illegally! Inconsiderate maybe, but being inconsiderate isn't normally a punishable offence... if it was all BMW drivers would be in jail.

Parking "illegally" in a university carpark is not illegal, immoral, or anything else. It is a breach of an agreement between the university and the student. Lets not read anymore into it! In UCC the story is the same.. massive expansion with no effort to cater for extra cars (nor any extra park and ride, or buses)

You can hardly blame the students then for creating chaos.. they just need to get to the lectures by whatever means are possible. If a student wins a nasty action with the potential to ruin his career brought by a clamper, more power to him!

DrChoda

Anan1 wrote:

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Nor would you, I suspect, if you were the one being inconvenienced. Respect for the rights of others is at the core of any civilized society, even in the absence of applicable legislation. This is as true in motoring matters as it is elsewhere. If I park in a space that i'm not entitled to then someone else loses out.

We're not talking about morality, I'm not sure why you don't understand this? But since you have brought that up, then here you go:
-If you are assuming that respect for the rights of others was breached by the person parking in a no parking zone, then it was also breached by the company that clamped the car. This is why it is not about morality, you see, both parties could morally be wrong depending on who you talk to. Morals are a matter of one's own opinion. If could be said by other's that it is MORALLY wrong to be driving a car as it is causing damage to the environment, and killing our earth. Anyways, enough of your trolling.
-car parked illegally on the lot, then the company monitoring the lot must have a method in place that penalizes the owner of illegally parked car, but in such a way that it is legal. Something that will not BREACH the legal rights of the owner of the car.
Anyways, yes the rest of us want to know if this applies to all clamping done in 'private' lots that are not run by any council.
(Please re-read s-l-o-w-l-y i-f-u-c-a-n-n-o-t-u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d-t-h-e-p-o-i-n-t)

Anan1 wrote:

I am simply making a point that you might not agree with. I hardly think that's trolling, do you?

Just stay on topic. Even the original poster is not in disagreement about parking in a no parking zone, he is talking about the legality of clamping by private companies. So, yes in fact, you are trolling in this thread. Your points about splleing hsa ntohing to do wtih tihs.