Clamped!

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

Yeah, I was, I lived on fish fingers & spaghetti for a year. But this is a euro, don't try to tell me that the OP genuinely couldn't afford parking.

Anan1 wrote: »

Are you trying to bury me in repetition here? Yes it should be stated, but yes it's blindingly obvious to anyone who's driven here for any period.

Haha. This is just funny. You repeat, that you can't believe the OP couldn't afford the ticket, hence stating he didn't pay for the parking.

He stated, that he bought the ticket after he sorted change from the teller in the bank and didn't have enough money on the account to use the atm.

You've been ignoring that the whole thread though and constantly been repeating, that you can't believe he couldn't afford the ticket. Talking buring the thread in repeating stuff.

/M

Guy:Incognito

Stark wrote: »

It's €150 for not having your NCT disc displayed. You can't just make up silly figures when you actually need to pass laws in order to enforce them.

Who said not having adisc displayed? I said not having an NCT.

Failure to have a current NCT certificate is an offence under Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. Conviction for this offence carries five penalty points and Courts may impose a fine of up to €2,000 and/or up to three months’ imprisonment.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Your-Vehicle/Your-Vehicle-/NCT/NCT-Certificate/


Did the RSA make up silly figures too?

homer simpson

Anan1 wrote: »

Read first, then post! Gary ITR, post 611.

Methinks you should heed your own advice

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Do not post further in this thread.

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

You repeat, that you can't believe the OP couldn't afford the ticket, hence stating he didn't pay for the parking.

This makes no sense.

Marlow

Gary ITR wrote: »

Because some guy hadnt got change. Im loathe to discuss another mans finances but the chap had to into the bank to a teller because there wasnt enoug cash in his account to use an atm, he also bought a ticket before returning to the car if im not mistaken

Anan1 wrote: »

Read first, then post! Gary ITR, post 611.

I did. Gary states, the OP bought a ticket before returning to the car, if he's not mistaken. Hence he could afford the ticket, but had to get change from a teller to do so.

I know plenty of people so broke, that they only have a few quid on their account. Not enough to use the ATM.

/M

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

You've been ignoring that the whole thread though and constantly been repeating, that you can't believe he couldn't afford the ticket. Talking buring the thread in repeating stuff.

/M

You've been ignoring my question too , so your even.

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

This makes no sense.

How would he have bought a ticket before returning to the car, if he couldn't afford it ?

/M

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

How would he have bought a ticket before returning to the car, if he couldn't afford it ?

/M

I didn't say he couldn't afford it, GaryITR did.

Guy:Incognito

https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=dublin+road,+naas&hl=en&ll=53.22099,-6.658459&spn=0.001457,0.003731&sll=53.344104,-6.267494&sspn=0.371809,0.955124&t=h&hnear=Dublin+Rd,+Naas,+County+Kildare&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.22099,-6.658459&panoid=5dFZPb4QHl3xe1oa_IQe_g&cbp=12,155.77,,0,22.65

Is that the car park or another one?

Wexfordian

homer_simpson wrote: »

Methinks you should heed your own advice

In fairness that was an entirely abusive use of modding. His reason was Anan1 was pro clamping therefore trolling.

TestTransmission

Anan1 can post away by the way everyone

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

How would he have bought a ticket before returning to the car, if he couldn't afford it ?

/M

In any case, why are you still fixating on whether or not he bought a ticket? All that matters is that he left the car parked without a ticket for 20 mins, hence the clamp.

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

I didn't say he couldn't afford it, GaryITR did.

Nope. Post 611, as you pointed out. Nothing says, that he couldn't afford the ticket. It only states, that he was so broke, that he couldn't use the ATM, hence had to get change from a teller.

Anan1 wrote: »

In any case, why are you still fixating on whether or not he bought a ticket? All that matters is that he left the car parked without a ticket for 20 mins, hence the clamp.

And since there is no law backing up the clamp, he got unclamped by friendly boardsies. No clamp was harmed.

Everybody, with the exception of you and 1 or 2 other people here in the thread and the clampers of course, are happy.

And since the only time wasted is the time you're arguing here, and the time of the clamper racketiers of course, all is good

/M

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

Nope. Post 611, as you pointed out. Nothing says, that he couldn't afford the ticket. It only states, that he was so broke, that he couldn't use the ATM, hence had to get change from a teller.



And since there is no law backing up the clamp, he got unclamped by friendly boardsies. No clamp was harmed.

Everybody, with the exception of you and 1 or 2 other people here in the thread and the clampers of course, are happy.

And since the only time wasted is the time you're arguing here, and the time of the clamper racketiers of course, all is good

/M

And since there is no law backing up the clamp why bother paying for parking at all?

Stark

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And since there is no law backing up the clamp why bother paying for parking at all?

They could use a barrier system. This was shot down on the basis that it was inconvenient for the person to supply the parking. Sure why not let the parking provider go round slashing people's tyres instead. Fulfils the same criteria: convenient for the landowner, causes inconvenience and expense to the motorist and no course of appeal. Oh and illegal too.

Guy:Incognito

Stark wrote: »

They could use a barrier system. This was shot down on the basis that it was inconvenient for the person to supply the parking. Sure why not let the parking provider go round slashing people's tyres instead. Fulfils the same criteria: convenient for the landowner, causes inconvenience and expense to the motorist and no course of appeal. Oh and illegal too.

Why should they fund a barrier system if they dont want to. That doesnt answer the question anyway or the one about the NCT fine.

mb1725

Gary ITR wrote: »

That looks like a small alien standing by the window.

Stark

Guy:Incognito wrote:

Why should they fund a barrier system if they dont want to. That doesnt answer the question anyway or the one about the NCT fine.

Typical fine for NCT is between €80 and €150 and has to be imposed by a judge in a court. I've never heard of anyone being charged the full €2000. People are giving fair warning before it goes that far. It's in no way comparable to a randomer making up a ridiculous fine and using extortion to obtain it from you.

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And since there is no law backing up the clamp why bother paying for parking at all?

I've responded to your question. Asking it over and over again won't get you a different answer: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79369517&postcount=605

/M

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

I've responded to your question. Asking it over and over again won't get you a different answer: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79369517&postcount=605

/M

Thats not a response thats you avoiding answering it. Why is charging for parking ok but charging for not paying for parking isnt?

Wheres the incentive to pay without clamping.

Guy:Incognito

Stark wrote: »

Typical fine for NCT is between €80 and €150 and has to be imposed by a judge in a court. I've never heard of anyone being charged the full €2000. People are giving fair warning before it goes that far. It's in no way comparable to a randomer making up a ridiculous fine and using extortion to obtain it from you.

Typical fine my hole. You said the fine was €150 and I was makign figures up.

Stark wrote: »

It's €150 for not having your NCT disc displayed. You can't just make up silly figures when you actually need to pass laws in order to enforce them.

colm_mcm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=dublin+road,+naas&hl=en&ll=53.22099,-6.658459&spn=0.001457,0.003731&sll=53.344104,-6.267494&sspn=0.371809,0.955124&t=h&hnear=Dublin+Rd,+Naas,+County+Kildare&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.22099,-6.658459&panoid=5dFZPb4QHl3xe1oa_IQe_g&cbp=12,155.77,,0,22.65

Is that the car park or another one?

That's the one i thought of. Hard to walk past your car to the machine and not see the clamp

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Thats not a response thats you avoiding answering it. Why is charging for parking ok but charging for not paying for parking isnt?

Wheres the incentive to pay without clamping.

Obviously, you can't read.

Here the direct quote that was the answer to your question.

Marlow wrote: »

The op stated, he paid the fee. I'd pay the fee for parking, if there is one, as I use the service.

Marlow wrote: »

It's a matter of attitude.

The incentive to pay the fee is to be able to park there. If you need enforcement do it like a proper business man with a process that is easy to follow for your customer. Don't employ racketeers. Barriers are one way.

/M

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

Obviously, you can't read.

Here the direct quote that was the answer to your question.





The incentive to pay the fee is to be able to park there. If you need enforcement do it like a proper business man with a process that is easy to follow for your customer. Don't employ racketeers. Barriers are one way.

/M

The question was why bother paying? Why would you pay parking if you dont recognise the consequences of not paying?

Surely if you hold the clampers in contempt , you have similar feeligns towards the person that employs them?
Why should they have to spend money fittign barriers when they dotn want to just because people wont respect their rules?

How is the incentive to be able to park there, when not paying and parking there anyway carries no consquences?

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

Everybody, with the exception of you and 1 or 2 other people here in the thread and the clampers of course, are happy.

If by happy you mean happy with their fingers in their ears then yes, they are. If on the other hand you mean happy in the sense of being happy to expose their views to critical questioning then no, I don't think everybody's happy at all. It's hard to respect a viewpoint whose best response to challenge is 'shut up and go away'.

Stark

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why should they have to spend money fittign barriers when they dotn want to just because people wont respect their rules?

Because the other options are operating outside the law and they have no right to complain when people lawfully refuse to pay the extornionists. There are advantages to hiring Mafia protection too but that doesn't make it right.

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

Because the other options are operating outside the law and they have no right to complain when people lawfully refuse to pay the extornionists. There are advantages to hiring Mafia protection too but that doesn't make it right.

Why would you park in a private car park and knowingly flout the owner's rules?

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How is the incentive to be able to park there, when not paying and parking there anyway carries no consquences?

Why does everything have consequences ? Somebody provides a service, you pay for the service. If everybody was acting fair, there was no need for enforcement.

Paying at exit is much more convenient for the person using the service, because they don't have to make up their mind before entering the carpark how to pay for the service, nor how long they want to stay.

The service provider gets their money guaranteed without having to pay anybody for enforcement. Just a matter of an initial investment, which pays for itself within a reasonable timeframe.

Pay and display on the other hand is the most hassleful way and general bordering on a scam. Simply because you have to decide how long you want to stay there in the first place. You then have to come back to get another ticket, if you decide to stay longer. And if you don't get back to your car in time or don't get a ticket in time, you get clamped and are required a fee, that doesn't scale at all to the parking fee.

In general pay and display is aimed at a quick buck. And as for the whole reason for this thread, legally more than vague when it comes to private pay and display, while publicly operated pay and display is legally very clearly regulated.

/M

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

Why would you park in a private car park and knowingly flout the owner's rules?

Many people don't knowingly flout the rules. They err and get done for it. Why would anyone decide "oh you know what would be fun today? Getting myself clamped and paying people who I despise €120 for the possibility of saving a euro". Like Marlow said, punishing your customer because they didn't follow your rules to the letter isn't a good way of doing business.

Guy:Incognito

Stark wrote: »

Because the other options are operating outside the law and they have no right to complain when people lawfully refuse to pay the extornionists. There are advantages to hiring Mafia protection too but that doesn't make it right.

It all boils down to inconciderate people not able to park their cars with respect to the owners of the land.

How about that NCT thing?