MSE News: Wheel clamping to be banned on private land

bartman1

liam8282 wrote: »

Now that clamping is banned etc, should parking on private land be made a legal matter rather than civil, so that people can actually do something enforceable about it?

They can recover their legimate losses through due process of law. What they can no longer do is take the law into their own hands,

liam8282

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

It seems there is only one person making multiple lenghty rants at the moment.

You?

A person who goes into fits of outrage whenever clampers are rightly called scum or vermin.

No, commented that to call ALL clampers scum, vermin, is wrong. Then received constant abuse for doing so.

But of course has nothing whatsoever to do with the soon to be ex-industry.

Yes, says the ripped off driver who has never been ripped off for anything driving related. & only dislikes clampers because of the job they do.

Clampers need to get over it. This particular gravy train is leaving the station and they are no longer on it. Rather than making any cogent arguments they appear to have clamped nurses and threatened MPs.

If only you would make the distinction between the good and the bad.

I have said I agree with your comments, but only in relation to the cowboy clampers.

You really do have some serious issues.

There must be other occupations that are suited to their unique combination of extremely low intelligence and pie derived brawn.

Discrimination at it's best. :T

And the world will continue as before, except decent people will no longer need to worry about this gang of mutton heads hiding in bushes waiting to pounce.

Yes, all those decent people who park on other peoples property without permission. Without a care of the effects to the person they are depriving use of their own land and property. Extremely decent folk they are.


You really have nothing to add to this discussion, except your own hatred for other people, this time it is clampers, but with some of the stuff you come out with I am sure there are plenty of other groups you will dislike with the same bigoted attitude.

liam8282

bartman1 wrote: »

They can recover their legimate losses through due process of law. What they can no longer do is take the law into their own hands,

The law was never taken into their own hands, that is completely incorrect.

How exactly can losses be recovered in the due process of law?

lucylucky

liam8282 wrote: »

Originally Posted by liam8282
What was this comment based on?

I will give a rough calculation for you based on information from this site. I will even do it in favour of most clamping companies being cowboys.

3,000 clamping co's, 650 legitimate registered.

So 650 good. good? based on what?

Based on the fact they were registered and practicing according to the government guidelines.... The government you have just quoted as being right all the time. Where did I quote the government being right all the time - yet another smokescreen of misinformation on your part

But I guess they are only right when they do something you agree with? Where did I say that?

2,350 left, say 70% cowboys, 1,645. why 70% not 10% or 100%?

As I said I choose 70% as it puts the majority of the unregistered companies as cowboys. It is a rough estimate, as I said.

It can be used to be completely biased either way, but I choose this figure to be fair. Fair on what basis? It is just a made up number which means nothing

So out of 3,000 companies, 1,645 bad, 1,355 good.

Hardly the huge majority made out. It just means 1,355 legitimate companies are being punished for the others actions. Using figures and made up variations of them doesn't really work

It does give a better and fairer indication, rather than people making totally unjust comments with no basis at all. No it doesn't your figures are meaningless

The figures also originated from this site, I have just given my interpretation of them. If you really think it is way off the mark, that is your opinion. If you are just making figures up "rough estimate" to use your words, then they are pointless. Did the figures come from MSE?

Yes, ban unregistered companies, make registering compulsory, make strict limits...... But to ban all companies IMO, is wrong.
If would appear the government of the day disagrees with you.

The government disagrees with me, I disagree with the government banning all clampers. That is the beauty of a democratic society, I still have the right to my opinion. I can still enter into a discussion, on a thread which is meant for a discussion on the topic. Of course you can.

Discussion is all well and good, people mostly seem to enjoy it.:D

lucylucky

liam8282 wrote: »

The law was never taken into their own hands, that is completely incorrect.

How exactly can losses be recovered in the due process of law?

Through the small claims court could be one way.

lucylucky

"Yes, says the ripped off driver who has never been ripped off for anything driving related. & only dislikes clampers because of the job they do."


Not that I have any knowledge of who "ripped off driver" is or why they chose the user name but one explanation could be that they were ripped off in some way and co-incidentally happen to be a driver.

AlexisV

I don't have photos.

The white lettering is the same standardised lettering as in the link you provided. Each and every car parking space is individually marked out, and each space has the initials of the firm it belongs to.

The first sign cannot be missed as I said, you have to drive past it to get into the car park.

The wording clearly says for staff and customers only.

A large white sign, with black bold lettering.

The signs currently only the walls state "private car park, wheel clamping in operation, £50 release fee". Now don't get this wrong, there isn't actually any clamping in operation, it is only used as a deterrent. Some people have obviously cottoned onto this, as no one is ever clamped, which is probably why there is such an ongoing problem.

But now there is no deterrent, and nothing to enforce any restrictions the problem will only escalate.

Ok, well I think your signage needs reworking. Don't think in terms of deterring people, think of educating these idiots. If you come across as high and mighty, with fake threats people will think they've got one over on you. Parking signs that speak to people work a hell of a lot better, but you rarely see them because landowners think in terms of an Englishman's Castle. Threats are everywhere and are routinely ignored.


"PRIVATE CAR PARK FOR EMPLOYEES AND CLIENTS ONLY
Please do not abuse our premises by parking and going elsewhere. We need access at all times to operate and unauthorised usage is affecting our businesses."

Also consider taking down reg numbers and filling in a V888 form to get the keeper's address. And then send them a letter asking them to stop and explaining why they are harming your business.

Think outside of the box. It's not a soft approach - persuading people is more effective that threatening them.

liam8282

lucylucky wrote: »

"Yes, says the ripped off driver who has never been ripped off for anything driving related. & only dislikes clampers because of the job they do."


Not that I have any knowledge of who "ripped off driver" is or why they chose the user name but one explanation could be that they were ripped off in some way and co-incidentally happen to be a driver.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: &?!

ripped_off_driver

Indeed the ripped offness and the driveryness may well be separate.

But to lighten the mood, and so that some do not get too obsessed with who I am, there is an amusing thread on Pepipoo at the moment suggesting alternative jobs for clampers:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=54013&pid=498435&st=0&#entry498435

Don't say we never do anything for this fine and upstanding bunch of our fellow citizens now that they face working for a living.

liam8282

AlexisV some sensible ideas, but they all cost time and money.

They're also reliant on appealing to the offending persons better nature, because as has been covered nothing is enforceable with regard to parking on private land.