Car Park Barriers

bazster

bazster wrote: »

Sooner or later someone's gonna drive up to the barrier, find they can't get out, and walk off leaving their car blocking the exit. The PPC might not think themselves so clever then.

And some really awkward booger might come back with another car and a bunch of mates in their cars and leave about 10 of them queued up blocking the exit.

peter_the_piper

Parking on the entry barrier whilst all the drivers read the terms would also be fun.

skivenov

forgotmyname wrote: »

Phone on the machine when you exit, because i have no credit and cannot dial out.
And the 20 cars behind me are now furious. Cars back up a few feet, person behind uses his ticket and 2 cars exit at speed.

Done this when my genuine ticket failed to register when the machine ate it.

I've done this as well for similar reasons. Things I learnt are:

Sometimes the barriers come down rather fast.
A 1989 Toyota Camry is more solidly built than the mechanism on the average carpark barrier
If I'd been in a convertible, it'd probably have brained me.

bazster

Another option: carry a roll of white insulating tape and/or a roll of black insulating tape and, prior to exiting, use them to modify your front number plate (I'm guessing that the barrier will lift in the case of an unrecognised reg, on the assumption that it was incorrectly read on entry).

HO87

The greed, mendacity and latent violence of some clampers ultimately resulted in clamping being made illegal. Its good to see that the same people now seeking to exploit legislation in such a away that the upshot will likely be the outlawing of private parking enforcement. Another own goal. One wonders whether this is Our Trev's latest venture?

taffy056

Sirdan wrote: »

Have to disagree. The POFA specifically and unconditionally exempts the use of barriers from the offence of "unauthorised immobilization of a vehicle".

Therefore it seems that with adequate signage the PPC / landowner can (ab)use the barrier system in this way using the same argument that clampers used i.e. "volenti non fit injuria" which simply means " to a willing person, no injury is done".

This is clearly not what the legislators intended and is a massive loophole that needs closing quickly but as it stands it seems to me that the situation is EXACTLY as clamping was.

i.e. whether or not you agree with the charge the only way to release the car is to pay.
You would then have to sue the parking company just as clampers were sucessfully sued previously on the basis of no contract etc etc

PS For BPA members there is an issue of not allowing an appeal to the PPC or POPLA but a non BPA member has no such issues and using this method they don't exactly need the keeper details do they ?

I disagree, yes there is an exemption, but it doesn't allow them to extort money off people without any appeal procedure. This is illegal its that simple

bazster

bazster wrote: »

Another option: carry a roll of white insulating tape and/or a roll of black insulating tape and, prior to exiting, use them to modify your front number plate (I'm guessing that the barrier will lift in the case of an unrecognised reg, on the assumption that it was incorrectly read on entry).

You could use the same trick to have fun in any car park where the maximum stay is ANPR-enforced. Modify your number plates before leaving, and then sit back to see what happens.

Will the system wait 'til you eventually leave (i.e. never) before flagging up your "overstay"? Or will it send you an infinite series of notices, thus allowing an infinite series of appeals to POPLA?

The_Slithy_Tove

bargepole wrote: »

Time to take out the boltcutters from the boot of my car, and replace them with my petrol-driven chainsaw, I think.

Better a set of spanners, so you can remove the barrier with no damage, and thus no allegation of criminal damage.

RENEGADE_2

Sirdan wrote: »

Have to disagree. The POFA specifically and unconditionally exempts the use of barriers from the offence of "unauthorised immobilization of a vehicle".

Don't get carried away, when I say that their actions are not legal I mean precisely that. Such operators may well have escaped the October 1st restrictions but they are by no means promoted to their make-belief pseudo-authority level. One poster asked whether the demand were legal and the answer is NO it is not. Beginning with clamping, this is a practice which was subject to oversight due to people being pressurised and not knowing their rights. The point is that if one refused to pay his demand ad infinitum, there would have been nothing the clamping company could have done - not if the vehicle were manned. Why? Because many acts down the years have expressly forbidden seizure of goods for non-payment of non-registered debt. So barrier nothing, if I get clamped, just watch and see if the company will get 2p out of me.

Now let's take the case of mobile vehicles within car parks with barriers. I tell you that if they follow another vehicle straight out before the barrier drops and succeed, the company is stuffed for its money and cannot claim "criminal damage".

The rule for barriers is this: their demands can ONLY be legal, if the amount sought is payable, and would be deemed so in court. If not, it's the law of the jungle - Plod washes his hands off the case, you find your own way out.

jonest10

Where is this car park and barrier, please