quisquose Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 No problem with a barrier. Alternatives are criminal damage. But there is no extortionate fine and court generally does not come into it. Clampers are being made illegal in October and have been in Scotland since 1991. Clearly the powers that be think there is something wrong with it. It isn't the clamping it is the extortionate fees that has brought this about. (The thing I object to and apparently you seem to think is OK). It is not a case of extortion now, it is a case of illegality as far as Excel is concerned. Their actions have no validity in civil law and can be safely ignored. There is now a simple defence against any court claim and until it is challenged and altered then it will remain a precedent. Not surprised that Excel have not been to this forum to explain how it doesn't apply to them. After all they are looking for a legal executive at £30,000 a year. My bold. No, I have clearly stated that it is the extortion and threats element that I object to. I'm basically in agreement with your position, but you seem to placing too much emphasis on some of my comments to determine the opposite. In principle a clamp is no different to a barrier, both prevent access to your car. Any land owner employing somebody to operate a barrier, and refusing to open it (even in an emergency) or only on payment of an extortionate fee, would be just as bad as somebody doing the same with a clamp or a tow. It's not the method of access deprivation that's the problem exactly, it's the criminal motivations, and methods employed by these sharks and the people that employ them. If clampers had released people's cars in a timely manner, and for a reasonable fee, then most of us would probably find them acceptable. As it happens none of them did, so it is right that the practice will be made illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley Dave Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Indeed. But a simple automatic barrier is fine. There is one for example at the Midland Station which has worked fine. There are thirty minutes free, then a charge. I bet that can be altered to as many minutes as one likes. So it is a way of controlling parking. Even your friend and mine Excel operate a parking system at Hallamshire Hospital with a barrier. Clamping may not be different in principle - but it is a hell of a difference in practice and that is why it has been banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Indeed. But a simple automatic barrier is fine. There is one for example at the Midland Station which has worked fine. There are thirty minutes free, then a charge. I bet that can be altered to as many minutes as one likes. So it is a way of controlling parking. Even your friend and mine Excel operate a parking system at Hallamshire Hospital with a barrier. Clamping may not be different in principle - but it is a hell of a difference in practice and that is why it has been banned. Would it be extortion if a car park charged £100 for 12 hours parking (£5.99 for <12 hours) and refused to open the barrier if payment wasn't forthcoming? Presumably if the fee's were clearly visible on entrance and when walking out of the car park the car owner wouldn't have much in the way of grounds for complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 No problem with a barrier. Alternatives are criminal damage. But there is no extortionate fine and court generally does not come into it. Clampers are being made illegal in October and have been in Scotland since 1991. Clearly the powers that be think there is something wrong with it. It isn't the clamping it is the extortionate fees that has brought this about. (The thing I object to and apparently you seem to think is OK). It is not a case of extortion now, it is a case of illegality as far as Excel is concerned. Their actions have no validity in civil law and can be safely ignored. There is now a simple defence against any court claim and until it is challenged and altered then it will remain a precedent. Not surprised that Excel have not been to this forum to explain how it doesn't apply to them. After all they are looking for a legal executive at £30,000 a year. What court was this decided in, precedents are only set by the high court and higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eckolad Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 What court was this decided in, precedents are only set by the high court and higher. The upper tier tribunal, which is a court of note and on the same level as the high court. Its decisions are binding on lower courts such as the county court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley Dave Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The upper tier tribunal, which is a court of note and on the same level as the high court. Its decisions are binding on lower courts such as the county court. Indeed and since it was our old friend from Excel Simon Renshaw-Smith under the name of his other company VCS - he will find it difficult to ignore. http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/vehicle_control_services_v_hmrc.pdf There is also the case of Observices v. Thurlow. As a final resort you may refer people to Arkell v. Pressdram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley Dave Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Would it be extortion if a car park charged £100 for 12 hours parking (£5.99 for <12 hours) and refused to open the barrier if payment wasn't forthcoming? Presumably if the fee's were clearly visible on entrance and when walking out of the car park the car owner wouldn't have much in the way of grounds for complaint. No problem with such a scenario at all. Doubt if many would park there though. Would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I'd make sure I left before 12 hours was up... But isn't that the same argument about being clamped after you've over stayed? The only difference is the mechanism by which the large payment is enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I'd make sure I left before 12 hours was up... But isn't that the same argument about being clamped after you've over stayed? The only difference is the mechanism by which the large payment is enforced. I fail to see any difference in either method myself. Irrespective of barrier, clamp or tow, it's the demands of £100+ for a minor oversight that make it extortion imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Would it be extortion if a car park charged £100 for 12 hours parking (£5.99 for <12 hours) and refused to open the barrier if payment wasn't forthcoming? Presumably if the fee's were clearly visible on entrance and when walking out of the car park the car owner wouldn't have much in the way of grounds for complaint. That looks like a disguised penalty clause to me and is therefore unlawful. Not to mention in probably falls foul of the UTCCRs, particulary under schedule 2 (1)e: ... requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.