Clamped!

Anan1 · 12-09-2012 09:44AM

niallo24 wrote: »

My car is currently clamped. Worth of car is about 200 quid, the price of 2 days clamped. Its been clamped for 4 days now. Gonna ring them tomorrow and inform them that I will never pay the declamp fee as it outprices the actual value of the car, and that if they try and remove my car I will report them to the guards.

My car is an absolute wreck, wonder how long the management company will want it stinking up the estate its clamped in. I can go months without my car, don't really need it. Its basically a stand off, and I reckon they need the parking space/clamp more than I need my car.

Half tempted to draw a huge penis on both sides of my car, the residents of the estate will not like this one bit. Its my property though, and the car doesn't have long left for this world one way or the other.

Why?

augustus gloop · 12-09-2012 09:51AM

car in my estate had a flat tyre for about a month there, i know the girl who owns it and she never bothered with it as public transport meets her needs, she was legally parked and all in order when they clamped her! when she rang APCOA they said the management company SATIS had put pressure on them to clamp it stating it looked undesireable. Cheek of them! she got it removed and pumped her wheel!
alot of the time the management company are as big a shower of ****es as the clampers

listermint · 12-09-2012 11:30AM

augustus gloop wrote: »

car in my estate had a flat tyre for about a month there, i know the girl who owns it and she never bothered with it as public transport meets her needs, she was legally parked and all in order when they clamped her! when she rang APCOA they said the management company SATIS had put pressure on them to clamp it stating it looked undesireable. Cheek of them! she got it removed and pumped her wheel!
alot of the time the management company are as big a shower of ****es as the clampers

Curtain twitchers with power.. there is a few on there.

Tallon · 12-09-2012 11:40AM

Anan1 wrote: »

Why?

Why what?

Anan1 · 12-09-2012 11:48AM

Tallon wrote: »

Why what?

Why go out of his way to upset and inconvenience his girlfriend's neighbours - they've done nothing wrong.

Tallon · 12-09-2012 11:49AM

Anan1 wrote: »

Why go out of his way to upset and inconvenience his girlfriend's neighbours - they've done nothing wrong.

Does a penis inconvenience you?

listermint · 12-09-2012 11:51AM

Tallon wrote: »

Does a penis inconvenience you?

only if its hanging off the car and i have to step over it.

Anan1 · 12-09-2012 11:55AM

Tallon wrote: »

Does a penis inconvenience you?

It's interesting, how to you one person's rights are sacrosanct and another person's are worthy only of derision.

Grolschevik · 12-09-2012 11:56AM

Tallon wrote: »

Does a penis inconvenience you?

Hmmm...

listermint · 12-09-2012 11:56AM

Anan1 wrote: »

It's interesting, how to you one person's rights are sacrosanct and another person's are worthy only of derision.

Its interesting you often confuse 'rights' with opinions or grievances.

Tallon · 12-09-2012 11:57AM

Anan1 wrote: »

It's interesting, how to you one person's rights are sacrosanct and another person's are worthy only of derision.

Works both ways, you're opinion is not sacrosanct

Anan1 · 12-09-2012 11:58AM

listermint wrote: »

Its interesting you often confuse 'rights' with opinions or grievances.

You think the residents of that development only have the 'opinion' or 'grievance' to park in their own spaces? Nah, they have the right.

listermint · 12-09-2012 12:00PM

Anan1 wrote: »

You think the residents of that development only have the 'opinion' or 'grievance' to park in their own spaces? Nah, they have the right.

Strange that, because usually you make the point that residents dont own the spaces, they lease them. im intrigued.

Arent they 'owned' by the MC ?

Anan1 · 12-09-2012 12:03PM

listermint wrote: »

Strange that, because usually you make the point that residents dont own the spaces, they lease them. im intrigued.

You're clutching at straws now. The residents of that development have the right to free use of their own spaces, whether bought or leased. But their rights don't matter, do they?

listermint · 12-09-2012 12:05PM

Anan1 wrote: »

You're clutching at straws now. The residents of that development have the right to free use of their own spaces, whether bought or leased. But their rights don't matter, do they?

No not clutching at any straws, just pointing out as has been done to me in the past that residents dont have ownership of the space.

No more, no less.

You may have referred to this yourself i believe.

Oh sorry i also didnt answer your question, there is nothing in the constitution i believe about the 'right to a parking space'

Anan1 · 12-09-2012 12:10PM

listermint wrote: »

No not clutching at any straws, just pointing out as has been done to me in the past that residents dont have ownership of the space.

No more, no less.

You may have referred to this yourself i believe.

Oh sorry i also didnt answer your question, there is nothing in the constitution i believe about the 'right to a parking space'

Just so we're clear, you think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with indefinitely denying the residents of that development the use of one of their spaces by blocking it with a banger with penises on the doors? Honestly?

listermint · 12-09-2012 12:14PM

Anan1 wrote: »

Just so we're clear, you think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with indefinitely denying the residents of that development the use of one of their spaces by blocking it with a banger with penises on the doors? Honestly?

I was under the assumption the space was his alloted one? may be im wrong il await the poster to confirm. I may have taken it up wrong but is he denying the use of someone elses alloted space ?

Grolschevik · 12-09-2012 12:18PM

listermint wrote: »

I was under the assumption the space was his alloted one? may be im wrong il await the poster to confirm. I may have taken it up wrong but is he denying the use of someone elses alloted space ?

Visitors' space in his girlfriend's complex.

niallo24 wrote: »

My car is currently clamped. Worth of car is about 200 quid, the price of 2 days clamped. Its been clamped for 4 days now. Gonna ring them tomorrow and inform them that I will never pay the declamp fee as it outprices the actual value of the car, and that if they try and remove my car I will report them to the guards.

My car is an absolute wreck, wonder how long the management company will want it stinking up the estate its clamped in. I can go months without my car, don't really need it. Its basically a stand off, and I reckon they need the parking space/clamp more than I need my car.

Half tempted to draw a huge penis on both sides of my car, the residents of the estate will not like this one bit. Its my property though, and the car doesn't have long left for this world one way or the other.

niallo24 wrote: »

Don't live in the estate, was visiting my girlfriend and my visitors pass expired by an hour. Clamped. ****.

listermint · 12-09-2012 12:21PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

Visitors' space in his girlfriend's complex.

oh well then he's just a pisstaker.

Anan1 · 12-09-2012 12:52PM

listermint wrote: »

oh well then he's just a pisstaker.

And that's being nice about it.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 12-09-2012 01:55PM

If the residents don't own the spaces what difference does it make what space he's in - they either can or they can't legally clamp peoples cars without licence or authority of the state.

The verdict here seems to be they can't.

In fact surely it's better he's not in "someones space". €90 PER DAY for going one hour over, for a visitor that parks in the allocated visitors space, is racketeering in my book. It's not his fault the thing has been there four days, it's theirs for trying to extort from him. I believe that's the whole point here.

Anan1 · 12-09-2012 02:30PM

nm wrote: »

If the residents don't own the spaces what difference does it make what space he's in

nm wrote: »

In fact surely it's better he's not in "someones space".

Whatever way you look at it, he's blocking the residents from using one of their spaces.

nm wrote: »

they either can or they can't legally clamp peoples cars without licence or authority of the state.

The verdict here seems to be they can't.

The verdict here seems to be divided. The verdict out in the real world seems to be that it's a grey area.

nm wrote: »

€90 PER DAY for going one hour over, for a visitor that parks in the allocated visitors space, is racketeering in my book. It's not his fault the thing has been there four days, it's theirs for trying to extort from him. I believe that's the whole point here.

It is 100% his fault the thing's been there for four days. Had he not overstayed his welcome he wouldn't have been clamped.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 12-09-2012 03:04PM

Anan1 wrote: »

Whatever way you look at it, he's blocking the residents from using one of their spaces.

The verdict here seems to be divided. The verdict out in the real world seems to be that it's a grey area.
It is 100% his fault the thing's been there for four days. Had he not overstayed his welcome he wouldn't have been clamped.

And if he hadn't been clamped he wouldn't be there for four days, blocking the residents from using the spaces.

The result of him staying an hour over in a visitors space, resulted in the illegal clamping of the car. Everything else (4 days, blocked space, residents put out, etc) is 100% a result of the illegal clamp.

Obviously this is a circular argument so we'll agree to differ on that one.

Out of interest though, do you think the clamping and management company clamped his car for the good of the residents? Or as a profiteering exercise?

Marlow · 12-09-2012 04:21PM

Anan1 wrote: »

You're clutching at straws now. The residents of that development have the right to free use of their own spaces, whether bought or leased. But their rights don't matter, do they?

listermint wrote: »

I was under the assumption the space was his alloted one? may be im wrong il await the poster to confirm. I may have taken it up wrong but is he denying the use of someone elses alloted space ?

listermint wrote: »

oh well then he's just a pisstaker.

He had a vistors permit which expired by one hour by the time they clamped him. In a visitors parking space, in a complex that his girlfriend lives in.

While the permit is expired, it's a bit cute to go clamping an hour later, when it's clear, that he normally is allowed to park there and the replacement permit maybe is on the way.

/M

Dr.Winston O'Boogie · 12-09-2012 06:36PM

Perfectly happy to move my car, once the clamp is gone.

I am using a visitors spot right now, I have an absolute rake load of visitors permits I can use also if they really want me to put them in the windscreen. Almost literally an infinite amount. So I will be valid, yet clamped. So it will just go on and on and on.

There is no way in hell though that I am paying the declamping fee. I can see the management getting annoyed but going so far as to actually remove the car? I don't see it happening. For starters where would they move it?

Colonel Sanders · 12-09-2012 08:38PM

Re the legality (or otherwise) of clamping isn't there a poster here who's going to the highest court he can to challenge private clamping?

Can understand if s/he doesn't want to give specifics if the case hasn't been heard but anyone any (non predudicial) info on how it's going and/or if s/he has a court date?

Anan1 · 13-09-2012 08:25AM

nm wrote: »

And if he hadn't been clamped he wouldn't be there for four days, blocking the residents from using the spaces.

The result of him staying an hour over in a visitors space, resulted in the illegal clamping of the car. Everything else (4 days, blocked space, residents put out, etc) is 100% a result of the illegal clamp.

Obviously this is a circular argument so we'll agree to differ on that one.

It's not circular, there's a clear starting pointed. It started when niallo overstayed his welcome.

nm wrote: »

Out of interest though, do you think the clamping and management company clamped his car for the good of the residents? Or as a profiteering exercise?

The management company employed the clampers for the good of the residents, the clamping company are a business, in it for for profit.

Marlow wrote: »

He had a vistors permit which expired by one hour by the time they clamped him. In a visitors parking space, in a complex that his girlfriend lives in.

While the permit is expired, it's a bit cute to go clamping an hour later, when it's clear, that he normally is allowed to park there and the replacement permit maybe is on the way.

/M

What would be the point of having visitor permits enforced by clamping if they didn't clamp when the permit was out by an hour? niallo24 got himself clamped, and now he's being petty and vindictive.

T-Maxx · 13-09-2012 08:36AM

^^^What he said.^^^

[/end thread]

Dionysius2 · 13-09-2012 09:51AM

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Re the legality (or otherwise) of clamping isn't there a poster here who's going to the highest court he can to challenge private clamping?

Can understand if s/he doesn't want to give specifics if the case hasn't been heard but anyone any (non predudicial) info on how it's going and/or if s/he has a court date?

High time that this happened. There is far too much leeway allowed to clampers when they act arbitrarily both public and private in this country and the only way to dent them meaningfully is to bring a legal challenge. I see where the residents along the 19 Bus route are bringing a legal challenge, judicial review or whatever it's called in response to the removal of that bus route. If there is a fund set up to bring a challenge against clampers, then that, imo, should be supported to the hilt and I think it would. If someone is in a position to keep us abreast of the progress of these case, that would be appreciated so that we can exploit any progress made. 'Exploit' is what they do to us, isn't it ?.....so what can be wrong with giving a little of it back ?

Dr.Winston O'Boogie · 13-09-2012 12:25PM

How am I vindictive? So if I wasn't clamped yet left my car there for weeks while displaying the visitors passes would that be the same?

I had legitimate passes to park there, still do, one had just expired and they clamped me. Now if I pay the declamp fee and then sent in proof that I had valid passes for the spot do you think I would get my money back? No chance.

I was tongue in cheek about drawing on my car but no way I am paying the declamp fee. The clampers themselves are not reasonable once they get their money so I feel no guilt whatsoever about the course of action I have taken.

Clamped!

Comments