Good for him! More drivers need to stand up to these "jobsworth" b******s!!
VD5D.
|
And what made this particular driver think it was ok to park on somebody else's land, and what made him so outraged when he was clamped as a result?
The firm should have defended the case, and I think they should have won
|
Joe,
[snip].
It seemed reading the article that iwo scroats waiting to pounce rather than alerting the parking offender also went against the company. The judge was not condoning illegal parking.
|
|
My readin of the article was that the £3000 odd accrued as £50 per day storage charges. He appears to have left the vehicle with them for 60 days. £50 per day does not seem out of the ballpark. Still side with the clampers on this one.
|
Providing there were signs up stating that if you parked in the area you would be clamped I cannot see how the judge has awarded this chap the money.
If a sign says no entry you don't drive down it, surely if a sign says No Parking then you don't park there. I feel there is more to this case than has been reported, or the judge hates clampers.
I'm not saying I like clampers but fairs fair.
|
I cannot see how the judge has awarded this chap the money.
Because they didn't actually turn up to present a defence.
I wonder if the guy would have been so enthusiastic if it had been his empty property people were parking on ?
|
Mark,
"Because they didn't actually turn up to present a defence."
I think this had more to do with, ahem, strategically placed/concealed warning signs and the aforementioned scroats lying in wait.
The judge deemed these factors together the almost instant towing away to be "unreasonable pursuit of fines".
Having seen the expose on TV of similar operations I agree with the judge. Anyway if they'd felt comfortable - they would have turned up.
|
From the Telegraph report;
"District judge John Harrison ruled in the motorist's favour at Huddersfield County Court in January, after the Leeds-based company failed to file a defence. "
|
|
Sorry I did know they didn't turn up. I'm suggesting that the way they had operated was why.
|
Oh, right, with you now.
It is normal for a County Court to find against the party who doesn;t turn up.
NPC regularily get beaten up in court.
Whether they didn\'t bother to turn up, or they were so disorganised is difficult to tell. But I\'d guess the latter.
|
|
Removed at author\'s request.
|
|
|
Without wishing to side for or against in this particular case, clamping has always seemed to me an especially vindictive and illogical punishment for wrong parking. If its purpose is to prevent the obstruction of the highway it is obviously counter-productive; if on private property it often leads to blatant extortion. There must be a better and more reasonable way ...
|
I'm not on the side of any clampers, I detest them, but I have people park in front of my offices in bays marked for my company only. This is very annoying when you have a delivery come and can't get to the roller shutters because some d*** h*** rep has left his mondeo in front of them, ignoring the sign, whilst he goes up the road to annoy some other company.
I don't like the idea of clamping but sometimes maybe it's the only solution left to some people. If people could read and showed a little common sense we wouldn't have these problems.
|
I agree.
If he hadn't parked where he shouldn't then nothing would have happened. And not seeing signs is no excuse. It still wasn't his land and therefore why would he think he has permission to use it ?
Outside one of our offices we actually rent the forecourt from the owners of a closed shop. We pay and use those spaces. Why would anybody else think they could use them whenever.
Now I agree that these clampers are somewhat over-enthusiastic and their methods may be worthy of concern, but if you don't park on someone else's land then it can't affect you.
M.
|
We have a carpark in this area, known generally as the Blockbusters carpark, for obvious reasons. A few weeks ago, cars suddenly started getting clamped there. It turned out that the carpark actually belonged to not only BB, but 2 other companies who had bought spaces there. However this really was not made clear.
There was a big to-do in the local paper, and now these other companies have been made by the council to display appropriate signs to show which spaces belong to them.
I can sympathise with those who got clamped prior to this 'clampdown' (no pun intended) because there really was nothing to say who owned which spaces etc.
As always, this is not really relevant to the question in hand here, but just to say it's not always obvious (although it may have been in the case discussed here, I don't know) what the rules are.
And no, I never got clamped there, so I am speaking from a neutral point of view...
HF
|
|
|
In the court case he was also rewarded costs for damage to his car, maybe he was willing to pay the release fee, but when he got to the compound found that his car was damaged ?
So in the above case should he have paid up and then gone through the courts to try to get the money back for the damage or should he have gone straight to his solicitor to seek return of the car and compensation for damages. I think I would have chosen the later.
Agreed that he should not have parked on the land, but they owed him reasonable care of the car while they had the car.
|
Oh I agree with that, its just this instant "sainthood" that annoys me.
Much as it appears that the clampers behaved appallingly, they couldn't have done so if he hadn't decided he could park on someone else's land in the first place.
As I say, it makes you wonder about his reaction to people parking on land that he owns - I suspect the same belief of righteousness somehow.
M.
|
|
Good lord, I thought my first post on this thread was going to be very controversial, but it seems not!
|
Yes but if these guys have already taken up your personal space, what on earth does clamping achieve except prolong your inability to access said personal space? Tow the blighters, it's a no-brainer...
|
|
|
|
|
|
