and help to keep the site free for all
Clamping cars as a last resort
- Thread starter rhody
- Start date
Lynton
awkward customer
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
eh?
by parking where i am supposed to, and when I am suppose dto, I have not been a receiver of such items.
and I was merely commenting on your oversight as mentioned above
can you confirm that the ones in question arent ?
No, but I would know if the were or were not by seeing them, the question to be asked is would you or the OP. I would want to know what liabilities I had opened myself up to.
Employing clampers is a risky business...
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
perhaps it would be more useful if you spelt out what the requirements of legal signage are ?
that would probably be more useful than the tiresome willy waving
that would probably be more useful than the tiresome willy waving
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Are you actually capable of contributing to a thread without resorting to insults when someone has a different opinion? You really are a very weak and sad individual. :thumbsdown:
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
OP
- Messages
- 1,083
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi David - is there a check list somewhere of essential information to be contained on signs and on receipts? If so, I'll chase it up and check it out.
If you could highlight what wording or omissions would make the signs or receipts "unlawful" in your experience, I would really appreciate it.
I've not checked one of their receipts but all the hi-viz signs are large, clearly displayed both at the site entrance and in individual bays and contain all the information and warnings any "reasonable" motorist would need to know about release fees and enforcement. There is a 24 hour phone number if needed. The signs clearly state the driver is "entering private land" and by parking on the site they are entering into a contract and agree to the terms and conditions contained on the signs etc etc
The way we have displayed and erected the signs makes it absolutely impossible for any motorist to claim that they entered the site and parked in clearly marked individual private residents parking bays and "didn't see any signs". No matter which way the car is facing warning signs are displayed - so it does not matter whether the driver drives in or reverses in - the hi-viz signs are just above head height front and back. If anyone claims not to have seen the signs - they would clearly need an eye test and should not be behind the wheel.
We chose our enforcement company very carefully and spoke to other clients of theirs before entering into a contract. I don't have any concerns about their professionalism or membership of bodies whatsoever and they act for many large private landowners in the county.
This is all a very steep learning curve and a last resort for us.
We have had to employ an enforcement company because our tenants were being threatened and intimidated by private motorists parking in residents designated private bays. Sometimes overnight. Some of the young girls came home late at night and could not park at all. They had to drive around several streets to find somewhere to park in the early hours of the morning and then walk back home - less than ideal when you have bought and paid for an allocated and designated private parking space of your own on private land, just outside your own house.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 1,083
- Edit My Images
- No
I've been thinking about the adequacy of our signs overnight.
They are all in English so that could possibly be criticised by some sectors of the community and we don't have a Braille version - but then we didn't see the need for that ever arising.......assuming that the driver of the vehicle meets the normal visual requirements for driving in the first place.
They are all in English so that could possibly be criticised by some sectors of the community and we don't have a Braille version - but then we didn't see the need for that ever arising.......assuming that the driver of the vehicle meets the normal visual requirements for driving in the first place.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,512
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OP
- Messages
- 1,083
- Edit My Images
- No
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How do I shoot a wedding in a car park................
for that many people i'd suggest an Uzi :nuts:
but make sure your getaway vehicle doesnt get clamped
- Messages
- 7,408
- Edit My Images
- Yes
can you confirm that the ones in question arent ?
given that we are talking about a criminal prosecution its up to 'you' to prove that an offence was commited (though frankly its hard to see the CPS letting this particular one get anywhere near a court)
It would not be a criminal prosecution as it is a civil matter therefore the CPS would have no decision to make either way
- Messages
- 3,050
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Badumtish!
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
umm - no it isnt - the clamping and its enforcement is a civil matter , but the issue of a clamping company violating their licence by clamping a blue badge holder is, at least acording to mr marq , a criminal matter
as per
in was in relation to this that i said that i couldnt see the cps getting anywhere near court , in a case where the badge holder had failed to display the badge before the alledged violation took place
- Messages
- 7,408
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You know, there I was thinking your reply was to the post you actually quoted in that very reply - pretty much like everybody else would have except you it seems.
:bonk:
- Messages
- 1,078
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its funny that when there is a difference of opinion on nikon or canon etc its fairly amicable but as soon as its about cars all hell breaks loose.
I thought I was in the wrong forum for a second
To the above posters who believe one way or the other It might be worth linking to sources
I thought I was in the wrong forum for a second
To the above posters who believe one way or the other It might be worth linking to sources
- Messages
- 271
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
could have just employed a boucer to stand at the gate with the well used phraze
" if your reg aint down you aint comin in"
Then you could stand back and see how many people will threaten the 7'2" gorilla on the gate :nuts:
spike
Quite a few probably when their in a car
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You know, there I was thinking your reply was to the post you actually quoted in that very reply - pretty much like everybody else would have except you it seems.
course you could just try reading the thread - my post was in refference to the one I quoted in the actual reply
but the one i quoted in the actual reply was from david marq arguing about the legality or otherwise of the clamping on rhody's site - and that the clamping contractors concerned were violating their licence by clamping a blue badge holder, supposedly having non compliant signs (not that theres any evidence that thats so) etc
My point being that if he were prosecuting a case (a criminal one as per his earlier post - quoted above for those too lazy to read the actual thread) the onus would be on him to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the signs werent compliant/ that a bb holder was clamped while displaying the badge etc - and my second point was that a criminal case that weak wouldnt get anywhere near court in the first place.
Now if you are quite done making a **** of yourself, perhaps we could return to the subject of the thread :bang:
Last edited:
- Messages
- 813
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
so all the blue badge and supermarket chat out the way. How has this gone down? Has the clamping gone live yet, has anyone got clamped yet? Sorry if i missed it if it has, but i have been skimming over most of the the off topic stuff.
OP
- Messages
- 1,083
- Edit My Images
- No
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhody
... we don't have a Braille version - but then we didn't see the need for that ever arising ...
It was bad sorry - but the best I could do at that time of the morning
Originally Posted by rhody
... we don't have a Braille version - but then we didn't see the need for that ever arising ...
It was bad sorry - but the best I could do at that time of the morning
OP
- Messages
- 1,083
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes it is now live and yes, sadly, despite the numerous and highly visible warning signs being erected a week before it officially started - clamps have now been applied to the vehicles parking on private land without permission.
We have had to replace signs torn down by, I'm assuming, angry locals and motorists and most embarrassing of all we clamped a visitors car because one of the residents "forgot" :bang: to give their guest a visitors pass to use when parking in the bays.
It was a registration number not on the "official" list, it was not displaying a valid holographic pass, it was there for nearly an hour and it was clamped. :rules:
Ho Hum
The enforcement company were within their rights to clamp as they now have the contract to enforce the parking restrictions on site and they have the same zero tolerance policy for everyone - residents and visitors alike. They have a zero tolerance policy to avoid any grey areas and arguments.
The visitors had to pay to get the clamp removed and have asked me to reimburse them the cost as they were genuinely visiting one of the residents.
Each sign clearly states "A valid parking permit must be clearly displayed at all times or the vehicle will be clamped"
Moral dilema: Would you pay their parking release charge when they didn't read the sign in the bay they parked in and were genuinely visiting a resident on a social call?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
BSM
Keith W made a valid point, not just to you, but to the original poster, who has already mention proving in front of a Magistrate.
As far as prosecution of the clamper is concerned, it probably wouldn't get as far as the CPS even if there were evidence of wrong doing on the part of the clamper, and clearly here, there's not.
So he's right to make his point, if for no other reason than to make sure the original poster is aware that parking on private property is NOT a criminal offence, its a civil matter, only persuable through a civil or small claims court.
In fact having read what you'd written, you gave the impression you were talking about the parking 'offence' not any infringement of the SIA license.
Anyway, moving on, a couple of points that are equally important. Supergluing a sign to a windscreen, is probably criminal damage, I'd not do it personally.
Lifting a car off private property an 'dumping' it back on a private road. Silly idea, its not the driver or owner who'd be liable for either the decriminalized parking offence that would follow, or the criminal offence of obstruction, it's the person who put it there! Not to mention, again, criminal damage probably.
While I am generally against the idea of clamper's, unfortunately, in cases like this, there is little option, the civil claims route is a non starter, unless the law changes, so when it is banned like it is in Scotland, It will leave people like the OP in an impossible situation.
Keith W made a valid point, not just to you, but to the original poster, who has already mention proving in front of a Magistrate.
As far as prosecution of the clamper is concerned, it probably wouldn't get as far as the CPS even if there were evidence of wrong doing on the part of the clamper, and clearly here, there's not.
So he's right to make his point, if for no other reason than to make sure the original poster is aware that parking on private property is NOT a criminal offence, its a civil matter, only persuable through a civil or small claims court.
In fact having read what you'd written, you gave the impression you were talking about the parking 'offence' not any infringement of the SIA license.
Anyway, moving on, a couple of points that are equally important. Supergluing a sign to a windscreen, is probably criminal damage, I'd not do it personally.
Lifting a car off private property an 'dumping' it back on a private road. Silly idea, its not the driver or owner who'd be liable for either the decriminalized parking offence that would follow, or the criminal offence of obstruction, it's the person who put it there! Not to mention, again, criminal damage probably.
While I am generally against the idea of clamper's, unfortunately, in cases like this, there is little option, the civil claims route is a non starter, unless the law changes, so when it is banned like it is in Scotland, It will leave people like the OP in an impossible situation.
Lynton
awkward customer
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
Hmm a tough one really. For me it would depend on how long they had been a tenant and how they approached you over the matter.
Saying that, the signs are quite clear (apparently) and it says if you don't have a permit, you will be clamped. Is ignorance or forgetfulness an excuse? I assume that tenant's etc were sent letters and reminders before the clamping started...
As an aside - how much is the release fee? Does 100% go to the clampers or do you get a cut?
All these factors would sway my decision, but why should yuo or your employer be financially liable for an idiot?
- Messages
- 7,408
- Edit My Images
- Yes
1. I did read the thread
2. Go and try your male cow manure on someone who cares
3. Now run along and wave your willy at someone else, there's a good boy
OP
- Messages
- 1,083
- Edit My Images
- No
A very thoughtful post Lynton - we had exactly the same discussion in the office.
I can guarantee the signs are numerous and clearly displayed.
The tenants were sent letters and they all signed up to the scheme because they were all suffering by losing their parking spaces.
They were sent reminders that it would go live 7 days after the signs went up and I hand delivered a letter through every letter box the day before it went live saying it would go live the next day.
The release fee is £95 pounds and it all stays with the enforcement company. we don't get a penny but we do get a properly managed site.
The tenant has been with us for nearly 3 years and is no trouble at all.
Our dilemma is, as you correctly highlighted, if we pay for one "lapse" by a resident or visitor - will they all expect us to pay for one, or more lapses, and a "get out of jail free excuse"?
Is it better to say we have the same zero tolerance policy as the clampers - it may seem harsh but we could spend days arguing about rights, wrongs and moral dilemmas and still be expected to pay a bill incurred by a third party.
- Messages
- 813
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We live in a tower block that is permit holder only. My mother in law was just recovering from cancer surgey had a blue badge, but due to her medication left her with short memory loss and she forgot to put the pass up. She got clamped and we had to go down and sort it. Now The guy did the typical thing and say...
"I have been watching that car was parked there for over 40 minutes you need to pay me £70 as i have already called the tow truck. and it will be £250 if they get here"
Firstly the car was there no longer than 20 minutes because my mother in law had only just got back from dropping my son off at school for us and the time now was 09:15. Secondly this clamper had a white van with "a1 van hire" written down the side and his driving licence on a neck chain. I simply approached him and said...
"so you have a rented white van, a clamp you could have got from argos and your driving licence on show, so basically you are just an ordinary bloke with a clamp. and as far as we are concerned just some mook off the street that wants us to to pay money to."
I then pulled out my SIA door supervisor badge and said...
"Hey, I have one of these, and if you are legit, then so should you. Now where is it?"
He looked a bit shocked and said "Its being processed." To that I replied
"well you better remove that clamp right the F*** now, because if you don't I'm going to call the police and have you charged with clamping without a licence and that me ol fruit comes with a £5000 fine and up to 5 years in prison."
He took it off I showed him that the disability badge was in the car, and he huffed and muttered something under his breath. I then reminded him that he better cancel the tow truck he hadn't yet called, because that was clearly another lie just like saying the car had been there for 40 minutes and that he couldnt take the clamp off without the office's say so, that ironically when we called them to complain about him, he answered the phone as the sole owner of the company.
"I have been watching that car was parked there for over 40 minutes you need to pay me £70 as i have already called the tow truck. and it will be £250 if they get here"
Firstly the car was there no longer than 20 minutes because my mother in law had only just got back from dropping my son off at school for us and the time now was 09:15. Secondly this clamper had a white van with "a1 van hire" written down the side and his driving licence on a neck chain. I simply approached him and said...
"so you have a rented white van, a clamp you could have got from argos and your driving licence on show, so basically you are just an ordinary bloke with a clamp. and as far as we are concerned just some mook off the street that wants us to to pay money to."
I then pulled out my SIA door supervisor badge and said...
"Hey, I have one of these, and if you are legit, then so should you. Now where is it?"
He looked a bit shocked and said "Its being processed." To that I replied
"well you better remove that clamp right the F*** now, because if you don't I'm going to call the police and have you charged with clamping without a licence and that me ol fruit comes with a £5000 fine and up to 5 years in prison."
He took it off I showed him that the disability badge was in the car, and he huffed and muttered something under his breath. I then reminded him that he better cancel the tow truck he hadn't yet called, because that was clearly another lie just like saying the car had been there for 40 minutes and that he couldnt take the clamp off without the office's say so, that ironically when we called them to complain about him, he answered the phone as the sole owner of the company.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Just as a note for all you selfish lazy buggers who park in the parent child spots, the reason they're close to the entrance is because people drive like dicks in carparks and children are fragile... and heavy to carry.
A special place in hell is reserved for you .
A special place in hell is reserved for you .
Marc
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 34,297
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And therein lies the bigger danger. If they know you'll foot the bill, they become extremely lax about displaying permits. The clamping company make lots of money and you end up skint.
- Messages
- 3,536
- Name
- Spike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Rhody I know this will sound harsh but you have to stand firm on not paying for this person, it sound to me by reading all your posts and everyone elses on here that you have done your homework got a reputable company to do this for you and you have done everything else right too by the letters and so forth.
It might leave a bitter taste for a while but it sends out a message to all, and that is "you all signed up for this and understood the rules, no excepetions"
spike
It might leave a bitter taste for a while but it sends out a message to all, and that is "you all signed up for this and understood the rules, no excepetions"
spike
- Messages
- 859
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
fabs said:
Why was that done? It was a reply to a totally over the top post. "A special place in hell reserved" for someone parking in a child place.
Get real!
Marc
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 34,297
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm quite real thank you. It was a personal insult and that's why it was removed.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Apologies, boss.
- Messages
- 859
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
In that case no hard feelings.
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,720
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Children should be under proper control when near vehicles. A dog has to be so why not kids?
At least hell is warm and there are parties. Knowing my luck, my hell would be full of screaming brats.
Lynton
awkward customer
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
Rhody,
Thanks for the response. Given the content of it........ you mentioning all you have done prior to signs and clampers, I would be inclined to not stand the £95 fee.
That might sound harsh - and Iif I was that tenant I may be a tad miffed and see it as being "done over" by the landlord for a while, however you have mentioned the problems with parking, there has being fair and adequate warning from you / your company, and they all agreed to it.
£95 is going to smart a bit, but I pretty much guarantee they will not "re-offend" - and word will soon get round the tenants.
It sounds as if the company you have used is as bona-fide as they get in this line of business........ and there are plenty of warnings.
Only reason I asked about the fee and cuts etc, is I thought say £100, you might get £25 (no idea why I even thought that, but I did.... more like a commission I guess) - and was going to say as a one time only goodwill gesture you could give them the commission.
I think if you / your company does pay it for them, you'll make a rod for your own back, as will open up the floodgates to "Well you paid last time" or "You paid Terry's in no 3"
Just my tuppence.
Thanks for the response. Given the content of it........ you mentioning all you have done prior to signs and clampers, I would be inclined to not stand the £95 fee.
That might sound harsh - and Iif I was that tenant I may be a tad miffed and see it as being "done over" by the landlord for a while, however you have mentioned the problems with parking, there has being fair and adequate warning from you / your company, and they all agreed to it.
£95 is going to smart a bit, but I pretty much guarantee they will not "re-offend" - and word will soon get round the tenants.
It sounds as if the company you have used is as bona-fide as they get in this line of business........ and there are plenty of warnings.
Only reason I asked about the fee and cuts etc, is I thought say £100, you might get £25 (no idea why I even thought that, but I did.... more like a commission I guess) - and was going to say as a one time only goodwill gesture you could give them the commission.
I think if you / your company does pay it for them, you'll make a rod for your own back, as will open up the floodgates to "Well you paid last time" or "You paid Terry's in no 3"
Just my tuppence.