Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Clamped!

1…1516182021…46

Comments

  • #512
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,196 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Anan1 wrote:
    Let us pretend for a moment that we all agree that every clamper in the country is a complete and utter scumbag with no other aim in life but to make the motorist miserable.

    Which they are and judging from the reactions of people to the clamping story, no amount of "you all get what you deserve" posting is going to save their reputations.
    Anan1 wrote: »
    It seems to me that you're trying to use your dislike of clampers as a smokescreen to mask the OP's abuse of another man's property.

    And exactly how did he abuse another man's property? Did he somehow cause €120 worth of damage to another man's land by being twenty minutes late paying?


  • #513
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Marlow wrote: »
    Why do you maintain, that he didn't pay. He paid. It just took him 20 minutes to get the money to pay for the ticket.

    /M

    The OP reads like he didnt buy the ticket
    God Father wrote: »

    Feel screwed as was only gone up to the bank up the street to get money out and came back with change then to buy a ticket, but was clamped by then time I got back circa 20mins later..


    Whos to say he didnt decide further on to just say he bought a ticket or to actually go buy a ticket in the mistaken belief that he could claim he had a ticket all along and was clamped in error? Your taking the word of an anonymous person on the internet that was tryign to build a case for themsleves beign wronged.
    Stark wrote: »
    And exactly how did he abuse another man's property? Did he somehow cause €120 worth of damage to another man's land by being twenty minutes late paying?

    The other man sets out rules by which you can use his property. Anything that doesnt conform to that is abuseing his rules.
    You set the rules on your property, leave him to set his rules and if either of you dont agree with the other, dont visit each other.


  • #514
    Marlow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Anan1 wrote: »
    The OP parked with no coins, and you're accusing the landowner of lack of foresight?

    Correct. Because the landowner KNOWS, what methods of payments he takes and how the area is layed out. He can make an educated estimation of the time it takes to pay.

    Somebody that arrives in the parking lot has no clue what they need for payment until they get to the machine. Then they have to make alternative plans for organising payment, if they don't have adequate payment.
    Anan1 wrote: »
    That's not how it works, hence the clamp.

    And in a fair world, the clamp would be released for free or a very minimal fee, if a ticket is produced, that is about the same or before the time the clamp was affixed. 90 EUR, which is more than 1 days worth of fees is extortion, because the car obviously hasn't been there that long, nor does it cost the clamping company that much to pay their personell for the time to clamp a car.

    /M


  • #515
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,196 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    The other man sets out rules by which you can use his property. Anything that doesnt conform to that is abuseing his rules.
    You set the rules on your property, leave him to set his rules and if either of you dont agree with the other, dont visit each other.

    So I can extort as much money as I like from anyone who calls to my door then? Next caller gets charged a €10000 release fee for calling without permission?


  • #516
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    The other man sets out rules by which you can use his property. Anything that doesnt conform to that is abuseing his rules.
    You set the rules on your property, leave him to set his rules and if either of you dont agree with the other, dont visit each other.
    Honestly, what part of this do people not get? The sense of entitlement is breathtaking.


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,196 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Honestly, what part of this do people not get? The sense of entitlement is breathtaking.

    The part about landowners getting to flout the law by inventing punishments.


  • #518
    Marlow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    The OP reads like he didnt buy the ticket
    Marlow wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79292952&postcount=11

    As he states, he went back (from getting change) to buy the ticket as soon as he could. Then found his car clamped. Yes, he has a ticket. That's also been stated several times later in the thread.

    You still haven't read the whole thread. This has been more thoroughly explained later on. I just gave you one quote as you were too lazy to read the whole thread and you weren't believing me.

    /M


  • #519
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Stark wrote: »
    The part about landowners getting to flout the law.
    The OP would never have been clamped had he respected the landowner's rules.


  • #520
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Marlow wrote: »
    You still haven't read the whole thread. This has been more thoroughly explained later on. I just gave you one quote as you were too lazy to read the whole thread and you weren't believing me.

    /M

    For someone throwing aroudn the lazy readign card, you cant have read all of my post, here, I'll give you a quote because your being too lazy
    Guy:incognito wrote: »


    Whos to say he didnt decide further on to just say he bought a ticket or to actually go buy a ticket in the mistaken belief that he could claim he had a ticket all along and was clamped in error? Your taking the word of an anonymous person on the internet that was tryign to build a case for themsleves beign wronged.


  • #521
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,196 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Anan1 wrote:
    The OP would never have been clamped had he respected the landowner's rules.

    Rules that are in many cases unclear and provide no option for appeal of the punishment because no law exists for the punishment. And you expect people to respect such thuggery.

    The legal option of a barrier system already exists for controlling how long people can park for. But you're trying to justify the landowner instead hiring thugs to extort money far in excess of money lost from parking too long in order to save a few quid for themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Stark wrote: »
    Rules that are in many cases unclear and provide no option for appeal of the punishment because no law exists for the punishment. And you expect people to respect such thuggery.

    The legal option of a barrier system already exists for controlling how long people can park for. But you're trying to justify the landowner instead hiring thugs to extort money from people in order to save a few quid.
    I'll say it again. The OP was clamped because they didn't pay.


  • #523
    senordingdong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    kildare.17hmr wrote: »
    no sortin out needed lad but i wouldnt say no to a pint if i see ya out some night ;)

    Thanks for the step by step photos...but one thing I can't figure out is how did you get the wheel off when the clamp was blocking the nuts & bolts?


  • #524
    Dartz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,427 ✭✭✭Dartz


    Thugs are cheaper and require less maintenance and no planning permission.


  • #525
    Marlow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    For someone throwing aroudn the lazy readign card, you cant have read all of my post, here, I'll give you a quote because your being too lazy

    You're making assumptions. I know a few of the people involved personally to take their judgement for good.

    The issue at hand is NOT the OP. It's the clamping racket and the lack of regulation and appeals process. The overcharging to get the clamp removed.

    If an appeals process was in place and removing the clamp wasn't charged as it is, none of this would be an issue.

    /M


  • #526
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Stark wrote: »
    Rules that are in many cases unclear and provide no option for appeal of the punishment because no law exists for the punishment. And you expect people to respect such thuggery.
    .

    The rules are very clear and the OP knew them. You turn up, you park, you buy a ticket at the machine.


  • #527
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Marlow wrote: »
    The issue at hand is NOT the OP. It's the clamping racket and the lack of regulation and appeals process. The overcharging to get the clamp removed.
    Yes it is. The OP got themselves clamped.
    Marlow wrote: »
    If an appeals process was in place and removing the clamp wasn't charged as it is, none of this would be an issue.

    /M
    The OP would still have been clamped, no?


  • #528
    Marlow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    The rules are very clear and the OP knew them. You turn up, you park, you buy a ticket at the machine.

    And if the machine is bust ? And if the machine doesn't take the payment that is required ?

    Again, lack of grace period. The only one that knows ALL the factors is the landowner and the grace period has to be calculated on those.

    /M


  • #529
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Marlow wrote: »
    And if the machine is bust ? And if the machine doesn't take the payment that is required ?

    Again, lack of grace period. The only one that knows ALL the factors is the landowner and the grace period has to be calculated on those.

    /M

    The machine wasnt broken from what I see and it takes the payment the owner wants it to take.

    The owner doesnt want a grace period then sobeit. Thats their choice. They provide the machine and the carpark, if people dont want to use them the way the owner want, go elsewhere. No one is forced to use the carpark. This is not a mandatory public service, its a business offered that the op availed of, but didnt do so by the rules.


  • #530
    Marlow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Yes it is. The OP got themselves clamped.

    The OP would still have been clamped, no?

    That depends on what the rules and the appeals process say. Speculation. He might, he might not.

    I maintain though, that if an appeals process was in place (by an independant entity) and the ticket was on the exact or a time before the clamping being affixed he would get his clamp removed for free or his money back.

    /M


  • #531
    lostboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭lostboy


    Gary ITR wrote: »
    Thread deceased
    this.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Marlow wrote: »
    And if the machine is bust ? And if the machine doesn't take the payment that is required ?

    Again, lack of grace period. The only one that knows ALL the factors is the landowner and the grace period has to be calculated on those.

    /M
    But the machine wasn't broken. The OP just didn't bring any change.
    Marlow wrote: »
    That depends on what the rules and the appeals process say. Speculation. He might, he might not.

    I maintain though, that if an appeals process was in place (by an independant entity) and the ticket was on the exact or a time before the clamping being affixed he would get his clamp removed for free or his money back.

    /M
    OP left the car without a ticket for 20 minutes. Even the most lax of regimes won't cover that, even if you think it should.


  • #533
    Marlow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    The machine wasnt broken from what I see and it takes the payment the owner wants it to take.

    The owner doesnt want a grace period then sobeit. Thats their choice. They provide the machine and the carpark, if people dont want to use them the way the owner want, go elsewhere. No one is forced to use the carpark. This is not a mandatory public service, its a business offered that the op availed of, but didnt do so by the rules.

    Rules that are not backed up by law, hence can't be enforced legally.
    Anan1 wrote: »
    But the machine wasn't broken. The OP just didn't bring any change.

    And you expect anyone, that comes from the outside of Naas, if they know the area or not, always to run around with change ?

    That's not very business minded from the landowners perspective. Unless he's counting on income from the clamping, of course. But then it's a racket again.

    /M


  • #534
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Marlow wrote: »
    Rules that are not backed up by law, hence can't be enforced legally.


    So why bother paying for parkign in any carpark then, just tell the owners to **** off.
    Sure its only their land they paid for, who are they to tell you how to use it.


  • #535
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Marlow wrote: »
    And you expect anyone, that comes from the outside of Naas, if they know the area or not, always to run around with change ?

    That's not very business minded from the landowners perspective. Unless he's counting on income from the clamping, of course. But then it's a racket again.

    /M
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY


  • #536
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Marlow wrote: »


    And you expect anyone, that comes from the outside of Naas, if they know the area or not, always to run around with change ?

    That's not very business minded from the landowners perspective. Unless he's counting on income from the clamping, of course. But then it's a racket again.

    /M

    Even if they didnt , they can head off to a shop or the garage there on the dublin road beside tesco that I'm sure will let you park on their forecourt while you buy somethign to get change.
    Abandoning the car without paying isnt the way to do it though. You may as well ditch it on the double yellows outside the bank.


  • #537
    Dionysius2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 342 ✭✭Dionysius2


    Wonderfully informative thread. Many thanks to all those who spelled out that clampers and their employers are pure chancers. I never intend to pay a clamping fee again. I have paid three in the past 7 years but never ever again. I know I'm not a bad motorist because with all the other hardpressed motorists I'm just about carrying the economy on my back with all those fees and taxes that punish us every day of the week.


  • #538
    Marlow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Anan1 wrote: »
    But the machine wasn't broken. The OP just didn't bring any change.OP left the car without a ticket for 20 minutes. Even the most lax of regimes won't cover that, even if you think it should.

    The landowner still has to account for these eventualities. He knows the surrounds. The people parking there don't until they get out of the car and to the parking machine.

    It's bad business practice. As a service provider you need to calculate all eventualities. I believe you have never heard of the term "customer is king".

    /M


  • #539
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Marlow wrote: »
    The landowner still has to account for these eventualities. He knows the surrounds. The people parking there don't until they get out of the car and to the parking machine.
    ".

    /M

    No he doesnt. He doesnt have to account for anything. If he wants the machine to only work off 1794 flowing hair dollars then thats his choice.

    Just like selling Mars bars for €400 , he's free to pratice business badly if he wants.


  • #540
    Marlow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Even if they didnt , they can head off to a shop or the garage there on the dublin road beside tesco that I'm sure will let you park on their forecourt while you buy somethign to get change.
    Abandoning the car without paying isnt the way to do it though. You may as well ditch it on the double yellows outside the bank.

    So you think it's a great idea to be in the way of other people in a forecourt or double yellows instead of parking your car safely in a car parking spot to sort out the payment whatever time it may take.

    That's very considerate of you.

    /M


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Marlow wrote: »
    The landowner still has to account for these eventualities. He knows the surrounds. The people parking there don't until they get out of the car and to the parking machine.
    No, the customer has to account for these eventualities. The landowner provides the space, the customer pays for it. If you want to buy, you bring money.
    Marlow wrote: »
    It's bad business practice. As a service provider you need to calculate all eventualities. I believe you have never heard of the term "customer is king".

    /M
    That's your idea of how it should be, and that's fair enough. But the landowner gets to decide how it is. If the customer doesn't like it, then they're free to park elsewhere.


Advertisement