WARNING Avoid Changegate Car Park, Haworth. Notorious for Clamping

vax2002

Yet people still park in Teds car park.
You must have been living on outer planet z beta five moon 6 not to have heard of this scam car park, yet people still go in ?
I have to say, stupid is as stupid does

torontoboy45

Sirdan wrote: »

As I said clause 54(3) of the Protection of Freedoms Bill if enacted allows for barriers to be (mis) used in this way.

AFAIK there have been no moves to amend or remove that clause by either house ..so it looks like it will go through.

I forsee some difficulties ahead a lot hinges on the question "do you really by implication consent to having your vehicle immobilized by the barrier at ANY time for ANY rerason simply by driving into a barried car park.???????
Surely there is a reasonable expectation that the barrier would only be closed to secure the actual pay & display parking charges OR when the car park is shut ?
At present it is unlawful to clamp for an unpaid "parking charge" so I don't see how misusing a barrier to achieve the same effect could possibly be lawful.

Having looked at it again what a stitch up it says that consent (whether legally binding or not) creates the lawful authority , this means that no offence under 54(1) can be committed by lowering the barrier ..as I read it ...however that can't possibly mean they can lower the barrier on a full car park and demand any sum they like from all the drivers to let them out ..so there must be some other "offence" that comes into play if they try that ..

(Who writes this crap how can consent that is not legally binding be deemed to be consent at all ?)

Discuss...........

but wait. what's the story re appeals process? surely any appeal would have to be heard and a decision to uphold the charge arrived at before money changed hands?

(I ask you because you seem to have a better handle on the legal clausey bits).

vax2002

The "solution" is in all our hands, do not visit business that use ppc scamsters, let them that are happy to be scammed learn the hard way, again and again, it will sink in eventually, those that dont use them will see an increase in business, them that do a decrease, its quite simple, you just have to stop following the flock.

torontoboy45

vax2002 wrote: »

Yet people still park in Teds car park.
You must have been living on outer planet z beta five moon 6 not to have heard of this scam car park, yet people still go in ?
I have to say, stupid is as stupid does

not every visitor to haworth lives on planet twok.

some call by the tourist info sites, look for car parks and clock changegate. TBF, the official site mentions something about a 'strict clamping policy' but that hardly translates as 'keep away from this borderline criminal'.

sarahg1969

tomatoevousparlour wrote: »

At risk of getting flamed here, Just watched the program about this on 4od and it seems most of the people getting the tickets are either: ...

taking someone else's ticket (forbidden within the rules)...

Do you know where people are getting these tickets from? Evans's cronies, who are posing as drivers leaving the car park, and "kindly" handing over their unexpired tickets. It's nothing short of a scam.

peter_the_piper

Could be a prime case for a setup then by watchdog et al.

Sirdan

torontoboy45 wrote: »

but wait. what's the story re appeals process? surely any appeal would have to be heard and a decision to uphold the charge arrived at before money changed hands?

(I ask you because you seem to have a better handle on the legal clausey bits).

As I understand it the appeals process has to be in place for Schedule 4 to come into force i.e. keeper liability.

The clause in question is part of the main bill not schedule 4.

The clause specifically exempts immobilization by lowering a barrier from being an offence.
It does not however make clear what if any conditions can then be attached to raising of that barrier.

It appears on the face of it that unscrupoulous operators could operate this as a "clamping by barrier" type of scheme and as such you would have to pay a realease fee and then sue to get it back.

However the legislation makes no mention of the circumstances under which such immmobilization by barrier is permitted ...which leads to the question even if you can legally prevent Car A from leaving because of non-payment or some other infringement ..what right do you have to by knock on effect prevent all the other "innocent" vehicles from leaving ??

At least with clamping only the "offending" vehicle is affected (usually)

Badly thought out legislation ..why would it ever be neccessary to block in using such a barrier when a simple ticket would do ..the only time this could be justified IMO is when the car park is closing at night for example or possibly on land that is not provided for parking at all..i.e. you tresspass you get blocked in, your choice.

peter_the_piper

Appeals system ids in place to go through BEFORE you pay, therefore surely a closed gate(pay up or else) is not in the spirit of the bill.

Sirdan

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Appeals system ids in place to go through BEFORE you pay, therefore surely a closed gate(pay up or else) is not in the spirit of the bill.

It may not be in the spirit but it does not contravene the statutes in the bill.
The appeals process is for ticketing only and it is only required to be in place for keeper liability to be commenced, not any other measures.

This is akin to clamping now , you can't appeal a clamp and then pay if your appeal is unsuccessful , you have to pay first then attempt to recoup your loss.

torontoboy45

I can see it now.

ted's monkey slaps a ticket on 'offending' vehicle.

monkey prowls around until driver appears.

monkey informs driver that barriers won't be lifted until payment made, along with the usual menaces/intimidation which have made uncle ted a youtube hit.

is the the scenario the rest of you envisage?