alchresearch Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 It would be interesting for an independent assessment of clamping costs and how much of it ends up as profit. I think people forget that companies have to pay taxes, insurance, employee wages, equipment wear and tear, vans and so on. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that a huge chunk of it is pure profit, but unless you're a clamper you don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley Dave Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 It'll be banned in October and it will be a criminal offence to clamp. Vast bulk of it is pure profit I would think. There is the extra charge for calling a tow truck for example. Not that there ever was a legal tow-truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 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. The difference being the car park OWNER would close the car park , not some outside cowboy company only interested in extorting obscene amounts of money from motorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 The difference being the car park OWNER would close the car park , not some outside cowboy company only interested in extorting obscene amounts of money from motorists. That could easily not be the case. The car park owner could subcontract out the license to install and operate barriers for a fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 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: jb How does a court determine that, is £12 a disguised penalty, £20, £50, how does it decide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley Dave Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 How does a court determine that, is £12 a disguised penalty, £20, £50, how does it decide? One way is if it goes up and down. eg. £30.00 today pay within 24 hours otherwise it is £60.00. Clearly a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 That wouldn't apply if the car park charge was simply £100/24 hrs over 12 hrs, it would just keep going up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley Dave Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I do believe this is irrelevant. There is a pretence it is about controlling parking. It isn't about that it is about these companies making huge amounts of money out of pretending they can fine people. I use three/four car parks - one a park and ride and one a private parking place - all of which control parking and none of which fine people. Automatic barriers seem to work fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riche Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I find shouting "GOOD MORNING" to traffic wardens as they are handing out tickets really fricks them off. Only being polite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT70 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 2nd excel/vcs letter arrived today, stepping it up a gear. its now £100 and threats of "may go to court" which "may result in solicitors fees" and "may result in baliffs" etc etc. lots of red ink to make it look official, and worded/set out to make it look all the more threatening. it refers to the fact that the "driver" is liable for all the costs etc. filed with the 1st one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.