Clamped!

Grolschevik wrote: »

And we're off again...

"I came here for a good argument" ..:pac:

Sorry, back on topic!!:rolleyes:

Anan1 wrote: »

Do you think there might be some connection between my regularly throwing change into the ashtray and my never getting clamped?

Perhaps. Like I've said before though. I don't live my life on the principal of "what if"

Perhaps I should keep change in the ash tray, perhaps I shouldn't have bought at the height. Perhaps I should have taken that job in London. Retrospect is a great thing.

Maybe you don't park in clamping hot spots.

Anan1 wrote: »

Do you think that there was some sort of fairness in how the OP was clamped?

No, I don't. Whilst I agree with you in principal re regulation I think a clamp being put on after 20 minutes at the end of the business day (or as close as you can get) is taking the piss

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

You argue purely for the sake of arguing.

I disagree.

Anan1 is discussing a topic on a discussion forum. If he has a different opinion to you or I then so be it. That's what makes the world go around after all.

MugMugs wrote: »

Perhaps. Like I've said before though. I don't live my life on the principal of "what if"

Perhaps I should keep change in the ash tray, perhaps I shouldn't have bought at the height. Perhaps I should have taken that job in London. Retrospect is a great thing.

Maybe you don't park in clamping hot spots.

Carrying change for parking isn't really a hindsight thing, anyone can start doing it and it'll start warding off clampers straight away.;)

MugMugs wrote: »

No, I don't. Whilst I agree with you in principal re regulation I think a clamp being put on after 20 minutes at the end of the business day (or as close as you can get) is taking the piss

Let's imagine that the car park owner had had big signs everywhere informing people that cars without a ticket would be clamped after 10 minutes, and that if they didn't like it not to park there, would it have been fair in your eyes to clamp the OP then?

Anan1 wrote: »

Carrying change for parking isn't really a hindsight thing, anyone can start doing it and it'll start warding off clampers straight away.;)

Let's imagine that the car park owner had had big signs everywhere informing people that cars without a ticket would be clamped after 10 minutes, and that if they didn't like it not to park there, would it have been fair in your eyes to clamp the OP then?

Sorry but I just can't take you seriously.

Would you mind confirming whether you have any conflict of interest in relation to this matter.

Anan1 wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Perhaps. Like I've said before though. I don't live my life on the principal of "what if"

Perhaps I should keep change in the ash tray, perhaps I shouldn't have bought at the height. Perhaps I should have taken that job in London. Retrospect is a great thing.

Maybe you don't park in clamping hot spots.

Carrying change for parking isn't really a hindsight thing, anyone can start doing it and it'll start warding off clampers straight away.;)

MugMugs wrote: »

No, I don't. Whilst I agree with you in principal re regulation I think a clamp being put on after 20 minutes at the end of the business day (or as close as you can get) is taking the piss

Let's imagine that the car park owner had had big signs everywhere informing people that cars without a ticket would be clamped after 10 minutes, and that if they didn't like it not to park there, would it have been fair in your eyes to clamp the OP then?

Well no. Statements of liability / disclaimers are useless. They're actually not worth the signs their printed on.

They're also generic and so overused that they're unconsciously disregarded. No matter what point you make here, I don't agree the OP was rightly clamped. It should be used as a final last resort not as a money spinner.

MugMugs wrote: »

Well no. Statements of liability / disclaimers are useless. They're actually not worth the signs their printed on.

They're also generic and so overused that they're unconsciously disregarded. No matter what point you make here, I don't agree the OP was rightly clamped. It should be used as a final last resort not as a money spinner.

Yeah well, at least we know exactly where we differ. Roll on regulation.

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

Anan1 wrote: »

Yeah well, at least we know exactly where we differ. Roll on regulation.

HA!

Eh, constructive point there BW.

Anan1 wrote: »

Carrying change for parking isn't really a hindsight thing, anyone can start doing it and it'll start warding off clampers straight away.;)

Pretty expensive punishment for such a trivial mistake. Can you imagine the uproar if shops refused to allow people to leave without paying €120 if they forgot to bring change for their groceries? Oh yeah, the answer would be "don't shop anywhere and that won't happen to you" :rolleyes:

RoverJames wrote: »

.... would the people have eaten the groceries? If not it's not remotely analogous to what happened here.

I've seen people eating chocolate while standing in the queue for shopping. They get charged the price of the bar, not 120 times the price of the bar.

Shane732 wrote: »

Why wouldn't the car park owner put up a barrier and also people to pay using debit/credit card?

That's a much more significant investment in equipment and requirement to manage the car park. I'd imagine that the car park owner as fairly ow costs with clampers while people incur fines. Unless the gov't changes the law, the best way to get rd of them is to make it financially unviable by not incurring the fines!

RoverJames wrote: »

They get charged and they pay though
In your earlier post you mentioned them not having the change to pay. If they hadn't eaten the stuff and hadn't the cash to pay they'd just leave without it, quite simple really.

Your point? People should pay their debts. People shouldn't be subject to extortion based on someone's whim.

RoverJames wrote: »

Your grocery shopping example has no relevance whatsoever to this thread.

Head into your local Tesco tomorrow, munch a few bars and head up to the counter with the wrappers, when you get there tell the person at the till you've eaten them and have no change to pay, see what happens.

I believe that in a scenario such as this, it was the intention of the OP to surrender payment before leaving the store. Tesco being a competent company would clearly facilitate their customer in more ways than merely archaic systems where coins are the only accepted tender. I do not believe it fair to think that the OP was considering stealing from the owner of the parking area.

RoverJames wrote: »

So you actually would have the money on you to pay?

It's even less relevant than I initially thought.

The OP had money too, just didn't have the change that was required so he had to get it. The intent was there to pay, but unlike a decent business owner such as Tesco who would have provided him with options to pay before going nuclear and calling the Guards or whatever, the owners of the particular car park went straight for the greedy option.