Clamped!

Drummerboy08

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Getting money doesnt come in to it. Enough to go from the car to the machine for the ticket and back. The fact you arrive without the money isnt the car parks fault.

You're right, it isn't the carpark's fault that I have arrived without any money. Still, I think people should be given the opportunity to go and get that money to pay for parking. It's fair and reasonable, something that alot of law is based on.

BTW, you ignored the rest of my post there, the whole legal aspect of it. Which of course is pretty important here.

Anan1 wrote: »

That's a bit ridiculous, if you don't mind my saying so.

I don't mind you saying so at all, we're all entitled to our opinions. However, I haven't called your opinions ridiculous so I would appreciate the same courtesy. I have my opinion on clampers in their current form and I stand by that opinion.

That's not what you said a few minutes ago:

I don't really understand why you have quoted those two posts.

I said, I got involved in the removal of this clamp because of how I feel about clampers in their current form. I don't really see how these posts contradict each other.

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What do you do in life when you come up against somethign that is new to you? Make up your own rules for it and assume them to be right or educate yourself?

Ask somebody. In the meanwhile, in the case of parking, park where my car is the least in way. With a barrier-less car park, that is in the car park itself as everywhere else, I'd be in the way. On street parking, in the filling station etc., none of them a good idea.

So I enter the carpark, go to the pay and display machine, find out I don't have enough change and now have to source change. That takes time.

Common sense should tell the landlord, that this is the scenario to somebody new to their carpark and calculate that in. They know the surrounds and can make an educated guestimate how long it takes to pay for the ticket. That's the grace period a proper businessman will calculate in.

I've plenty of times been standing at a pay and display machine, that doesn't work. Even a whole row of them, not working. But with public pay and display, it's simple. You can appeal a fine if it was issued after or at the same time as you purchased your pay and display ticket. You can also ring them to tell them, that their machine is out of order and they'll actually talk to you and accomodate you.

It's not uncommon, that it'll take more than 15 minutes to get a parking ticket. You might have 3-4 people in front of you, if there's only few ticket machines, that also are getting tickets .. on a busy car park.

So, the same as Drummerboy, common sense for what is needed worst case scenario, is 30 minutes. In my experience. Anything else is wreckless by the operator.

/M

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I don't mind you saying so at all, we're all entitled to our opinions. However, I haven't called your opinions ridiculous so I would appreciate the same courtesy. I have my opinion on clampers in their current form and I stand by that opinion.

I called your expressed opinion ridiculous, not you. Did you not thank a post threatening to ban me for daring to even express my opinion?

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I said, I got involved in the removal of this clamp because of how I feel about clampers in their current form.

The OP left their car without a ticket for 20 minutes. How can you feel that the clampers acted unreasonably in this particular case?

@ Marlow - Why are you still confusing 'the car park owner should' with 'the car park owner should have to'?

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

@ Marlow - Why are you still confusing 'the car park owner should' with 'the car park owner should have to'?

Where is the difference ?

/M

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

Where is the difference ?

/M

The difference is that, even though you might reasonably argue that the owner should do x and not y, at the end of the day the owner gets to decide whether to do x or y.

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

I called your expressed opinion ridiculous, not you. Did you not thank a post threatening to ban me for daring to even express my opinion?

I never said you called me ridiculous, just my opinion.

Yes, I did thank that particular post from a Motors Mod instructing you to stop posting in this thread. I agreed with that Motors Mod because I felt your posts were flaming other users, and bringing this thread OT.

The OP left their car without a ticket for 20 minutes. How can you feel that the clampers acted unreasonably in this particular case?

The fact that the OP -

- Parked the car, and went straight to get cash to pay for a ticket
- the OP did indeed return to the car, and paid for a ticket
- Having met the OP and having spoken to him, I believe he was not out to save himself a few quid on parking.
- Having spoken to the clamping company on the same occasion, it was clear that all they were interested in was getting as much money into the kitty as possible. Greed is the word I used in an earlier post.

Lets try to have an informed discussion about the issue of private clamping companies here going forward, without getting into nitpicking.

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I never said you called me ridiculous, just my opinion.

Yes, I did thank that particular post from a Motors Mod instructing you to stop posting in this thread. I agreed with that Motors Mod because I felt your posts were flaming other users, and bringing this thread OT.

I think you're being a bit thin-skinned, under the circumstances. Anyway, i'll live, and I think you will too.

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

The fact that the OP -

- Parked the car, and went straight to get cash to pay for a ticket
- the OP did indeed return to the car, and paid for a ticket
- Having met the OP and having spoken to him, I believe he was not out to save himself a few quid on parking.
- Having spoken to the clamping company on the same occasion, it was clear that all they were interested in was getting as much money into the kitty as possible. Greed is the word I used in an earlier post.

Lets try to have an informed discussion about the issue of private clamping companies here going forward, without getting into nitpicking.

Look, we all know that you don't leave your car unattended in a private car park for 20 minutes if you don't want a clamp. This isn't about opinions, it's just the way it is. You know it, I know it, and the OP knows it too. If it had been five minutes i'd be agreeing with you, maybe even up to 10. But 20 is taking the complete p1ss, and I honestly can't see how you'd argue otherwise. This isn't about clamping companies, this is about the OP.

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

The difference is that, even though you might reasonably argue that the owner should do x and not y, at the end of the day the owner gets to decide whether to do x or y.

I still don't see the difference. But that might just be because I'm not native english and nit picking from your side.

/M

fasttalkerchat

Anan1 wrote: »

The OP left their car without a ticket for 20 minutes. How can you feel that the clampers acted unreasonably in this particular case?

Clamping a car over parking is almost always unreasonable! Interfering with someone's car to render it undriveable is illegal is many cases and clampers operate a shady business based around extortion. I have no problem with people removing a clamp because clamping is a legal grey area and a very extreme and rudimentary way of dealing with people who underpay parking by 50c intentionally or otherwise.

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

But 20 is taking the complete p1ss, and I honestly can't see how you'd argue otherwise. This isn't about clamping companies, this is about the OP.

You're assuming too much. I'd go by 30 minutes based on the grace period in other carparks. From my experience in Ireland.

/M

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

I still don't see the difference. But that might just be because I'm not native english and nit picking from your side.

/M

OK, i'll word it differently. You're saying how you think the car park owner should run their car park, and you're explaining why. I'm making the point that, even though your reasons may be sound, it's still not your call to make. The owner gets to decide how they run their car park.

Bruthal

Anan1 wrote: »

I think you're being a bit thin-skinned, under the circumstances. Anyway, i'll live, and I think you will too.


Look, we all know that you don't leave your car unattended in a private car park for 20 minutes if you don't want a clamp. This isn't about opinions, it's just the way it is. You know it, I know it, and the OP knows it too. If it had been five minutes i'd be agreeing with you, maybe even up to 10. But 20 is taking the complete p1ss, and I honestly can't see how you'd argue otherwise. This isn't about clamping companies, this is about the OP.

Well the clamper had been and gone within the 20 minutes, so how long was it parked before being clamped? It probably was only 10 minutes.

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

I think you're being a bit thin-skinned, under the circumstances. Anyway, i'll live, and I think you will too.

Fair enough.

Look, we all know that you don't leave your car unattended in a private car park for 20 minutes if you don't want a clamp. This isn't about opinions, it's just the way it is. You know it, I know it, and the OP knows it too. If it had been five minutes i'd be agreeing with you, maybe even up to 10. But 20 is taking the complete p1ss, and I honestly can't see how you'd argue otherwise. This isn't about clamping companies, this is about the OP.

I would normally agree with you, but not in this case. It's very clear that the OP had all the intentions of paying for his parking. When the ATM refused to give him cash, he went to a bank, where instead most people would have given up and gone about the rest of their business.

I

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

You're assuming too much. I'd go by 30 minutes based on the grace period in other carparks. From my experience in Ireland.

/M

I don't know what car parks you use, but I can't remember the last time i've seen more than 15 minutes - and that's unusually generous.

Seth Brundle

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Interfering with someone's car to render it undriveable is illegal is many cases and clampers operate a shady business based around extortion.

can we clarify one thing on this: how is clamping on private property, with notification signage of the possibility, illegal? Under which law has clamping such as this been found to be illegal?

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I would normally agree with you, but not in this case. It's very clear that the OP had all the intentions of paying for his parking. When the ATM refused to give him cash, he went to a bank, where instead most people would have given up and gone about the rest of their business.

Look, we all know that you need coins to pay for parking. You can't just rock up with no change, park the car and hope for the best while you try to sort something out.

fasttalkerchat

kbannon wrote: »

can we clarify one thing on this: how is clamping on private property, with notification signage of the possibility, illegal? Under which law has clamping such as this been found to be illegal?

It was illegal until the law was modified to add the line "in a public place".
This is where they grey area comes about. I'll get you the exact law.

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

The owner gets to decide how they run their car park.

Sure he does. And clearly he's not only unreasonable. He also entertaines a racket.

/M

Seth Brundle

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I would normally agree with you, but not in this case. It's very clear that the OP had all the intentions of paying for his parking. When the ATM refused to give him cash, he went to a bank, where instead most people would have given up and gone about the rest of their business.

How were the champers to know what was happening?

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

OK, i'll word it differently. You're saying how you think the car park owner should run their car park, and you're explaining why. I'm making the point that, even though your reasons may be sound, it's still not your call to make. The owner gets to decide how they run their car park.

I do agree with you here, but it has to be a two way system. The other party (i.e. the driver of a car) need's to know EXACTLY what they are getting into when they park in a private carpark.

They need to know that by not paying for the parking, they are essentially agreeing to allow their vehicle to be clamped.

Now the problem with the above is there is no current legislation in place for such an occurance. It also could be deemed to breach the RTA. The other issue I have is that the people who fit the clamps in most cases are not qualified to touch a car. By playing with a wheel and suspension items, all in the same area as brakes, there is a genuine concern about safety.

This all needs to be addressed from a legal standpoint.

Seth Brundle

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

It was illegal until the law was modified to add the line "in a public place".
This is where they grey area comes about. I'll get you the exact law.

Do please, because you said that it is, not was illegal!

Marlow

kbannon wrote: »

How were the champers to know what was happening?

Simples. By first taking note of the car, then after a reasonable time to come back and check if a ticket has been placed in the car, otherwise clamp.

Definatly not by clamping first, ask questions later, meaning never.

/M

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I do agree with you here, but it has to be a two way system. The other party (i.e. the driver of a car) need's to know EXACTLY what they are getting into when they park in a private carpark.

They need to know that by not paying for the parking, they are essentially agreeing to allow their vehicle to be clamped.

Now the problem with the above is there is no current legislation in place for such an occurance. It also could be deemed to breach the RTA. The other issue I have is that the people who fit the clamps in most cases are not qualified to touch a car. By playing with a wheel and suspension items, all in the same area as brakes, there is a genuine concern about safety.

This all needs to be addressed from a legal standpoint.

I agree, which is why we need legislation for proper signposting with independent appeals, etc. But even with that, the OP would still have been clamped. Would you have been out under his van then?

fasttalkerchat

kbannon wrote: »

Do please, because you said that it is, not was illegal!

113.—(1) A person shall not, without lawful authority or reasonable cause, interfere or attempt to interfere with the mechanism of a mechanically propelled vehicle while it is stationary in a public place, or get on or into or attempt to get on or into the vehicle while it is so stationary.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is committing an offence under this section, he may arrest the person without warrant.

(4) This section shall not apply to a person taking, in relation to a mechanically propelled vehicle which is obstructing his lawful ingress or egress to or from any place, such steps as are reasonably necessary to move the vehicle by human propulsion for a distance sufficient to terminate the obstruction.

(5) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a good defence to the charge for him to show that, when he did the act alleged to constitute the offence, he believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that he had lawful authority for doing that act.

Then amended

(8) Section 113 of the Principal Act is hereby amended—

(a) by the deletion in subsection (1) of “in a public place”, and

(b) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2):

“(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £350 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.”.

According to this it is illegal. I was saying that it is illegal in many cases.

Drummerboy08

kbannon wrote: »

can we clarify one thing on this: how is clamping on private property, with notification signage of the possibility, illegal? Under which law has clamping such as this been found to be illegal?

It could be percieved to be in breach of section 113 of the RTA.

Anan1 wrote: »

Look, we all know that you need coins to pay for parking. You can't just rock up with no change, park the car and hope for the best while you try to sort something out.

Absolutely, but we all get caught short once in a while. Everyone. We can't be perfect all the time!

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

It was illegal until the law was modified to add the line "in a public place".
This is where they grey area comes about. I'll get you the exact law.

"In a public place" doesn't literally mean a place that is owned publically, it means any place that is accesible by the public, more or less. A private carpark would be considered a public place.

kbannon wrote: »

How were the champers to know what was happening?

Exactly, this goes back to a point I made earlier. They weren't. So instead of being greedy, take a note of the time, location and details of the car, come back after a certain period of time, be that twenty minutes otr thirty or what ever.

If the vehicle is displaying a valid parking ticket on your return, then all is good. If there is still no ticket, then clamp away, once the relevant legislation is in place.

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Absolutely, but we all get caught short once in a while. Everyone. We can't be perfect all the time!

It's a clamp, it's not like they were going to chop his head off!

Guy:Incognito

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Absolutely, but we all get caught short once in a while. Everyone. We can't be perfect all the time!

.

Getting caught short is the not perfect part. What you do then is a rational decision. Parkign your car and heading off for 20 mins is just that, parking. The clampers dont know if hes at the bank or in the shop.

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

I agree, which is why we need legislation for proper signposting with independent appeals, etc. But even with that, the OP would still have been clamped. Would you have been out under his van then?

No I wouldn't. Reason? If there was legislation in place, everyone would know what they were and were not entitled to do. If the OP was not entitled to do what he did and as a result he was clamped then fair game.

This is the grey area that needs to be addressed. Once the system is fair and clear I would have no problem.

fasttalkerchat

Anan1 wrote: »

It's a clamp, it's not like they were going to chop his head off!

Even still not everyone can remove them like the OP here. There is a huge charge if you need the clampers to remove it for you.

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

It's a clamp, it's not like they were going to chop his head off!

I never implied that was going to be the case!!

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Getting caught short is the not perfect part. What you do then is a rational decision. Parkign your car and heading off for 20 mins is just that, parking. The clampers dont know if hes at the bank or in the shop.

I know, this is where the grace period comes into play. If such a system was in place, I would know that I have x amount of time to go and get money to pay for my parking to avoid being clamped.

This is win win for everyone involved.