Alternative to Clamping. A landowners view

[lamma]

its your land then just manage it legally and lawfully, that is all you have to do. if that costs money then that is just part of the price of being the landowner. caveat emptor.

[electron99]

My drive is often blocked by mothers taking their children to a nearby school.When challenged they say it will be only for two minutes, which of course does not include the 30 minute chat at the school gates.

 

Something needs to be done about arrogant motorists who think they have a god given right to park anywhere as their needs are greater than anyone else.

 

Education is the answer - not clamping, plus a harder driving test that weeds out the antisocial drivers amongst us.

 

its your land then just manage it legally and lawfully, that is all you have to do. if that costs money then that is just part of the price of being the landowner. caveat emptor.

 

As a home owner I cannot afford any remedies - and besides why should I pay for someone else's lack of respect and consideration for others.

[Chesterexpress]

its your land then just manage it legally and lawfully, that is all you have to do. if that costs money then that is just part of the price of being the landowner. caveat emptor.

 

In that case just put correct signage up and clamp them. If this offends anyone, then tough as it is hard enough for many small businesses these days without having to put up with inconsiderate drivers parking wherever they choose to do so, without regard for the consequences of others.

[electron99]

posted in wro9ng thread

Edited September 16, 2008 by electron99
posted in wrong thread

[Genepool1]

arrogant and inconsiderate freeloaders

 

Sums up PPCs to me. Especially the "perkier" ones.

[Guest oracleslave]

What a load of free-loading, scrounging, lawless, gutless bunch of sanctimonious twats post on here. A lawless bunch that consider themselves special when in fact all they do is inconvenience thise around them by their ill-considered actions. To have the audacity to then moan about it on a public forum and expect sympathy...well how very dare you.

 

Just pay the £150 you cheapskate...I mean you are a contractor aren't you?

[Genepool1]

The voice of PPC/clamper reason speaks. Is it any wonder we all laugh at them? In the end they are not capable of rational discussion and resort to the insults and abuse thst lurk very thinly below the surface.

[Al27]

Back to the original poster - what signage do you have in place at the moment?

 

"Customer Parking Only" is ineffective.

 

I think you should try something like

 

"Please only park here if you are customer. Doing otherwise is inconsiderate and harms local small businesses. Thankyou for your co-operation. John Smith, Smith and Sons Ltd".

 

You'd be surprised how well people comply when they are spoken to like they're real people.

 

If you're going to do self-ticketing, that's assuming people have ignored your scary sign in the first place.

 

Sure, you can't stop everyone from parking there, whatever you do (save for barriers), but just stick a letter under their wipers if they ignore your sign. A guilt trip is far more likely to stop them doing it again IMO.

[Guest oracleslave]

[edited] .

 

Oh dear Al. Wrong on so many counts. Disregarding the personal jibes you may find that the following applies:

 

1) I have not been inconvenienced. I think the OP might have been when his car was clamped though

 

2) I don't charge fine's for my services, more like a daily rate.

 

HTH

 

PS: If you know the law so well how come you keep getting it wrong?

Edited September 16, 2008 by jonni2bad
Quoted post only

[anthonyenglish]

I'm not a clamper and I've also never been clamped. I've had 2 parking tickets in my 15 years of driving, both of which I paid because both times I was in the wrong. The reason for my low number of parking fines is that I take it upon myself to check that it is ok to leave my car. If in any doubt I move it to somewhere else. In most cases people get parking fines because they are simply too lazy - too lazy to walk an extra 100 yards, choosing to inconvenience others.

 

In this case it seems that the land owner gets little or no sympathy which I feel is wrong. I know I'd be pretty hacked off if I found somebody parked on my drive (i don't have a carpark). Why should the land owner go to the expense and hassle of fencing off his land, the land is for his customers use, not for anybody to use as they see fit. Surely setting land aside for the convenience of his customers and then making it difficult for them to use defeats the object.

 

Personally I'd extend clamping to people using disabled bays also - and anybody with ginger hair!.

[HSBCrusher]

What a load of free-loading, scrounging, lawless, gutless bunch of sanctimonious twits post on here. A lawless bunch that consider themselves special when in fact all they do is inconvenience thise around them by their ill-considered actions. To have the audacity to then moan about it on a public forum and expect sympathy...well how very dare you.

 

Just pay the £150 you cheapskate...I mean you are a contractor aren't you?

 

well, I think that view is a little extreme OS.

 

If there was a sign put up "park here and I'll punch you in the face" it wouldnt be legal for you to then go out and punch them in the face.

Private companies are not allowed by law to issue penalty notices that mimic official ones, issue invalid invoices and then threaten court action.

 

The issue of inconsiderate parking needs to be addressed, but within the law.

 

Whether the law is fit for purpose, thats another matter.

 

You are welcome to post here, but please be civil about it.

[Guest oracleslave]

well, I think that view is a little extreme OS.

 

If there was a sign put up "park here and I'll punch you in the face" it wouldnt be legal for you to then go out and punch them in the face.

 

 

Well I think that view is a little extreme.

 

The issue of inconsiderate parking needs to be addressed, but within the law.

 

Is it just inconsiderate? Stretching the point to its most extreme view as you do above means I could go out and park my car on the head of the first person I find but ease my conscious by telling myself I was mildly inconsiderate for a few moments but it's all better now because I didn't break a law. Well I never...

[Guest oracleslave]

[edited]

 

 

You are welcome to post here, but please be civil about it.

 

Indeed.

Edited September 16, 2008 by jonni2bad
Quoted post only

[pin1onu]

You'd be surprised how well people comply when they are spoken to like they're real people.

 

Sure, you can't stop everyone from parking there, whatever you do (save for barriers), but just stick a letter under their wipers if they ignore your sign. A guilt trip is far more likely to stop them doing it again IMO.

I quite agree. I think this approach is more likely to be successful and it would remain within the law.

 

As Crusher has pointed out - whatever solution you adopt you have to remain within the law.

[HSBCrusher]

Well I think that view is a little extreme.

 

Is it just inconsiderate? Stretching the point to its most extreme view as you do above means I could go out and park my car on the head of the first person I find but ease my conscious by telling myself I was mildly inconsiderate for a few moments but it's all better now because I didn't break a law. Well I never...

My view is not extreme.

People must remain within the law, parking companies included.

The cure for inconsiderate parking must be found within the law. It's as easy as that.

My "extreme" illustration shows the point that illegal acts cant be used to get rid of unwanted parking, whatever they might be.

 

Parking on someones head, now that is definitley a tad illegal isnt it

 

Now, as I said before, you are welcome to your view, but please be civil

[My Real Name]

-t-

Edited September 17, 2008 by My Real Name

[Advocaat]

That's entirely specious.

 

The issue here is when clamping occurs unlawfully, occasioning trespass against a vehicle.

 

What is being suggested here is that the clamping is lawful - specifically that the vehicle driver consented to having their vehicle clamped (visible, large signs and all that jazz), and the clamper is licensed (as require by law).

 

Where "tickets" are issued, they are not worth the paper that they are written on, and amount to de facto penalties / fines, which are unenforceable.

 

A car park is an offer to treat, a private driveway is not. The car park, by dint of the fact that is is accessible, is open. If owner want the car park do be for customers only, he must take steps to ensure that only customers may use the car park - Wishful thinking is not good enough.

 

To take a different analogy - As a night club owner (a club being an offer to treat), I only want paying customers inside my club. By your suggestion, why should I have to pay for a bouncer or doorman to ensure only those that pay are allowed to enter.

 

 

YANAL, IANAL and I believe that's incorrect, a club is not an offer to treat; that statement is ill thought out at best and moronic at worst. You're mixing up contract law with other legal concepts. A private car park with private car park markings is NOT an offer to treat, a public car park displaying prices would be!

[Al27]

What is being suggested here is that the clamping is lawful - specifically that the vehicle driver consented to having their vehicle clamped (visible, large signs and all that jazz), and the clamper is licensed (as require by law).

 

That's fair enough, assuming we don't get into £180 release fees, tow truck threats, cancellation fees etc.

 

On another subject, Oracle's 4 posts have given me great entertainment. I wonder what marvellous vitriol he will spout next. I'm intrigued what 'services' he offers, if he doesn't do 'fine's' [sic]

[WAVE_131]

I am a member of a club which has a private car park, we are considering how to keep it available so the members can use it when they want it.

 

Conclusion:- we shall invest in a post and chain. Then cut a key for each member.

 

It is clear from all the people clamped THAT CLAMPING DOESN'T WORK.

 

May I ask a question and I apologise if I appear obtuse, but do landowners get a cut of the takings from the clampers or is it all clampers' money? In which case, given that the clampers benefit from people parking " illegally " IT IS IN THE CLAMPERS' INTERESTS FOR PEOPLE TO CONTINUE PARKING "ILLEGALLY", if you see my arguement.

[Guest pdyke14856]

No. The Landowner doesnt get a cut of the clamping in this case. The clamper provides a 'service' to ensure that people who shouldnt park there, dont. The cost of the 'fee' goes completely to the clamper.

 

For a private members club. Perfect. Otherwise impracticle.

[lamma]

where the money goes raises some interesting question about whether or not the car park is set to the correct business rates. many are not set at the correct rate and should be under higher charges. Nice thing is you look can look it up online.

[WAVE_131]

No. The Landowner doesnt get a cut of the clamping in this case. The clamper provides a 'service' to ensure that people who shouldnt park there, dont. The cost of the 'fee' goes completely to the clamper.

 

For a private members club. Perfect. Otherwise impracticle.

 

Thank you for that pdyke. In which case it IS in the interests of the clamper to have continued "illegal" parking, hence the complaints about "wrong" clamping, tickets etc.

 

The Landowner effectively gives the private company a licence to print money.

 

I think a token and barrier system, like the one operated by my local NHS hospital would be best, at least the landowner would get some cash

[anthonyenglish]

That's entirely specious.

 

The issue here is when clamping occurs unlawfully, occasioning trespass against a vehicle.

 

What is being suggested here is that the clamping is lawful - specifically that the vehicle driver consented to having their vehicle clamped (visible, large signs and all that jazz), and the clamper is licensed (as require by law).

 

Where "tickets" are issued, they are not worth the paper that they are written on, and amount to de facto penalties / fines, which are unenforceable.

 

A car park is an offer to treat, a private driveway is not. The car park, by dint of the fact that is is accessible, is open. If owner want the car park do be for customers only, he must take steps to ensure that only customers may use the car park - Wishful thinking is not good enough.

 

To take a different analogy - As a night club owner (a club being an offer to treat), I only want paying customers inside my club. By your suggestion, why should I have to pay for a bouncer or doorman to ensure only those that pay are allowed to enter.

 

 

Taking specious as meaning.....

 

Apparently right; superficially fair, just, or correct, but not so in reality; appearing well at first view; plausible; as, specious reasoning; a specious argument.

 

Could you please tell me why it is so? I've had 2 parking tickets in 15 or so years driving. Ive never been clampled but drive around 20,000 miles per year. I'm careful and considerate when it comes to where I leave my car. If I find a bit of wasteland or a patch of ground behind some shops I'll continue on until I can find a more suitable place to leave my car which won't get me a parking ticket. My only parking tickets related to overstaying my permitted time in a pay and display. While I was annoyed at getting these, I knew how long I had paid for and overstaying this was my fault.

 

I fail to see how a private car park is a treat while a private driveway is not. I will let people visiting me park on my drive. I wouldn't let somebody park on my drive I didn't know. I fail to see how one bit of land owned by somebody can treated differently simply because one is a commercial property.

 

As I said before - most people get parking tickets because they are either too lazy to find a place where they can leave their car without getiing a ticket or simply inconsiderate of others. You see it all the time with disabled spaces. People who drop leave their car in them because they can't be bothered to walk an extra 50 yards to the shop.

[Guest pdyke14856]

Thank you for that pdyke. In which case it IS in the interests of the clamper to have continued "illegal" parking, hence the complaints about "wrong" clamping, tickets etc.

 

The Landowner effectively gives the private company a licence to print money.

 

 

I dont disagree with that. The Landowner pretty much has to sign their life away so they can use their own land!

[Jaffa_Cake77]

Barriers:

Extra cost

Extra liability

Extra maintenance

Prospect of vandalism

Needs powering too which is another headache

 

Barrier and chain means inconvience for members - although for a club this is probably the best idea as on club nights someone can keep an eye on the car park entrance.