MSE News: Wheel clamping ban moves closer

Flyboy152

d123 wrote: »

Smug git, I wonder if he and that troll flyboy are related?

Oh dear...just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion, they are all trolls. Not a very nice way to regard people, personally I think that those are the sorts who generally have much to hide. How often do you trespass park?

anewman

Flyboy152 wrote: »

about residents lending out their discs to others. I am sure this does really go one. I am also sure there is more to this than meets the eye, on both sides.

You come across as intelligent as Trevor (i.e. not very). Why would someone lend their disc to another if it is that common and people get clamped over it? If Maureen did lend the disc to someone how come it was still in her car? What's going on is Trevor wants to put across a plausible explanation for robbing Maureen's money but is unable to provide a better excuse.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

How often do you trespass park?

How often do you troll forums? You must have said that more than once in this thread, we all heard you the first time.

Flyboy152

anewman wrote: »

You come across as intelligent as Trevor (i.e. not very). Why would someone lend their disc to another if it is that common and people get clamped over it? If Maureen did lend the disc to someone how come it was still in her car? What's going on is Trevor wants to put across a plausible explanation for robbing Maureen's money but is unable to provide a better excuse.

But I'll bet it still goes on. I used to know a chap who would rent out his resident's parking bay, complete with permit, in Chelsea. If people use someone else's permit, without considering the risks of getting clamped, that is their problem. I'll bet she had no proof that the permit was inside the car at the time, does she? The arrangement of those discs look a bit odd to me.

How often do you troll forums?

Not often, hardly ever really. Actually, come to think of it, I don't I ever have. But isn't it odd, whenever someone disagrees with the way the resident forum mafi4 think, they get accused of all sorts of things, they get insulted, berated, get called the most awful names, but most significantly, they are never engaged with in sensible, grown-up debate. No, it is better to shout them down, hoping they will be frightened off. Just take a look at the benefits threads.

You must have said that more than once in this thread, we all heard you the first time.

But still didn't get an answer, did I?

Spartacus_Mills

Orford wrote: »

Unfortunately, as i'm sure you well know, a lone and almost unique judgement in a County/Sheriffs court does not create a legal precedent

This is flyboy here. I think crediting him with knowledge is probably a little ambitious.

trisontana

Flyboy152 wrote: »

There is legal precedent to allow private firms to fine errant parkers.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2008/12/14/glasgow-driver-hit-with-5k-parking-fine-78057-20968709/

Of course the PPC did not "fine" the motorist. They took them to the Sheriff Court where the motorist lost and had to pay up. Flyboy doesn't seem to know the difference between the civil and the criminal court system.

Also note the date of 2008. If a "precedent" had been set (which it did not) how come there aren't thousands of cases being won by PPCs in the intervening years?

d123

trisontana wrote: »

Of course the PPC did not "fine" the motorist. They took them to the Sheriff Court where the motorist lost and had to pay up. Flyboy doesn't seem to know the difference between the civil and the criminal court system.

Also note the date of 2008. If a "precedent" had been set (which it did not) how come there aren't thousands of cases being won by PPCs in the intervening years?

That case is hardly a parking precedent, it was a motorist who admitted to parking but used a defence of the PPC having no right to charge a parking fee. He was always going to lose after admitting to being the parker and seeing the signage.

[STRIKE]Cryboy[/STRIKE] Flyboy is always going to be clutching at straws.

Hadeon

All is not lost Flyboy.....given todays release of the Government proposals in the 'Protection of Freedoms Bill' you may soon be able to erect prominent notices on your land warning 'tresspass parkers' that they face a parking charge penalty of £50,000. If the driver refuses to pay or cannot be identified, you may be able to pursue the RK through the courts - no appeals system (that is for the driver/RK of the offending vehicle), no upper penalty limit, no gates or expensive barriers etc - sorted!!!

This will also no doubt solve that prolific & endemic nuisance you quote of errant motorists parking on private dwelling driveways up & down the land.

Remember, we're all in this together eh?

esmerobbo

Hadeon wrote: »

All is not lost Flyboy.....given todays release of the Government proposals in the 'Protection of Freedoms Bill' you may soon be able to erect prominent notices on your land warning 'tresspass parkers' that they face a parking charge penalty of £50,000. If the driver refuses to pay or cannot be identified, you may be able to pursue the RK through the courts - no appeals system, no upper penalty limit, no expensive barriers etc - sorted!!!

This will also no doubt solve that prolific & endemic nuisance you quote of motorists parking on private dwelling driveways up & down the land.

Remember, we're all in this together eh?

Tis Mucking Fadness!!!!!!!:o

Coupon-mad

Hadeon wrote: »

All is not lost Flyboy.....given todays release of the Government proposals in the 'Protection of Freedoms Bill' you may soon be able to erect prominent notices on your land warning 'tresspass parkers' that they face a parking charge penalty of £50,000. If the driver refuses to pay or cannot be identified, you may be able to pursue the RK through the courts - no appeals system (that is for the driver/RK of the offending vehicle), no upper penalty limit, no gates or expensive barriers etc - sorted!!!

This will also no doubt solve that prolific & endemic nuisance you quote of errant motorists parking on private dwelling driveways up & down the land.

Remember, we're all in this together eh?

Astonishing! :eek:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59054

We need to lobby MPs to remove that ill-considered schedule 4 load of twaddle!

So the rogue clampers just need to move on to chasing random registered keepers alleging that there's an unpaid private PCN outstanding and the amount now stands at £extortionate and there's no appeal. Never mind actually issuing any fake PCNs, just collect up all the car reg numbers you want, anywhere, and go for the scattergun approach once you have all the keeper's details.

What??!:eek:

pgl0897

gadgetmind wrote: »

Oh lovely, so everyone has to fit awkward and expensive gates and barriers just because of a few !!!!!!!!!!s who can't be bothered to find a proper parking space. As it happens, we do have barriers on our larger car park at the rear, which have twice been ripped off by people who thought that they had a right to damage our property just so they could then park where they wanted.

Sorry, but clamping seems like a perfect way to discourage inconsiderate parking such as this. I'm sure it's open to abuse, but if there are signs up explaining that it's private property DON'T PARK THERE!

Ian

:rotfl:

!!!! me. If it's causing you that much bother, get the train to work. One less car on the road for the rest of us.