WARNING Avoid Changegate Car Park, Haworth. Notorious for Clamping

vax2002

esmerobbo wrote: »

He said: “I don’t get on well with the Skipton police force. They have a vendetta against me because of the job I’m in.”

I can understand that!

http://www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/news_keighley/9737162.Clamper___s_case/

What is interesting is the Law is already bending to his son, two adjournments ? Normal people have 1 chance, stick your insurance on the court clerks table or guilty ? So why has he been given 3 chances now to cough up ? That would just never happen in any other court.
This Bloke Ted evans obviously has "something on" some important people that grants him special privilege over mortals .

ManxRed

esmerobbo wrote: »

He said: “I don’t get on well with the Skipton police force. They have a vendetta against me because of the job I’m in.”

No, its not that, I think you'll find that its because you are an absolute ****.

UnconsciouS

Here is an interesting detail. The address shown for Gareth Evans in the newspaper article is reported as Ling Park Approach, Wilsden (east of Haworth).

In a BBC news report on the internet dated 30th May 2007, another clamper George McDicken was facing court on charges of making death threats to police. The article shows McDicken was also living at the same address in Ling Park Approach (verified in other sources).

I presume the neighbours are aware of the ongoing blight on the value of their properties. I suspect the property is in the Evans portfolio. I hope the police are keeping an eye on it!

give_them_FA

When you read of people like this- and others- it leaves you furious at the spinelessness of courts and successive governments that have permitted criminals to continue to ply their filthy trade for so long. Even now they have finally plucked up the courage to get rid of them they have given them months of notice so they can carry on right until the last minute.

WHY?

Trebor16

vax2002 wrote: »

What is interesting is the Law is already bending to his son, two adjournments ? Normal people have 1 chance, stick your insurance on the court clerks table or guilty ? So why has he been given 3 chances now to cough up ? That would just never happen in any other court.
This Bloke Ted evans obviously has "something on" some important people that grants him special privilege over mortals .

Sorry vax, but that is rubbish. To say that normal people only have 1 chance when you don't know the reasons why adjournments have been granted in this case is nonsense.

UnconsciouS

In the Metro newspaper of the 28th March 2012, it is reported that a Paul Wiseman collapsed with breathing difficulties when being approached by Gareth Evans. Evans, it is claimed, called for an ambulance, proceeded to clamp the man's vehicle, and collected £150 from him before the ambulance took him away.

The article in the Metro refers to Carstoppers as a company, but I wonder what form the 'company' actually takes, as a Carstoppers company linked to Gareth Evans is shown as being dissolved. Cetainly, as at October last year, Evans, Evans and Farnell were still printing the word Carstoppers on their sparce paperwork.

In September last year, Ted Evans (father of Gareth) was filmed giving operational instructions to the other two - even though he claimed he no longer owned the company.

UnconsciouS

give_them_FA wrote: »

When you read of people like this- and others- it leaves you furious at the spinelessness of courts and successive governments that have permitted criminals to continue to ply their filthy trade for so long. Even now they have finally plucked up the courage to get rid of them they have given them months of notice so they can carry on right until the last minute.

WHY?

I agree. What worries me is that when these conmen stop clamping that they may well attempt to collect their plunder by convincing threats of legal action in place of clamping.

If the tactics of creating 'confusion', ie: poorly marked and tiny parking spaces, impossible terms and conditions, wrong ticket printing, and encouragement to break rules persist - then the scam is only partially addressed. If the authorities (Trading Standards) are impotent in policing the vague, misleading and erratic elements of this scam now, why should they become any more robust at enforcing trading laws once clamping rights have ceased.

In my opinion, many members of the public will continue to be inimidated into parting with large amounts of money through sheer fear - though perhaps, not in the same numbers.

These people have become used to cheating - not just clamping. It is beyond belief that, in future, their approach would change to one based on fairness! It won't happen.

steve1500

Would you be doing anything wrong if you removed the clamp by picking the lock?

You are not damaging the lock or clamp

give_them_FA

Of course you would not. What could they possibly have to complain about, other than that they had failed to scam you?

trisontana

Especially as they usually charge a "release fee". If you can release it yourself then no payment is required.