Clamping is unlawful, says minister
Thursday 30th July 2009, 3:00PM BST.
Wheelclamp signs in the car park opposite the Odeon
WHEEL clamping is illegal and drivers should stop ‘giving in to it’, the Home Affairs Minister has said.
Indicating his firm support for new efforts to outlaw the deeply unpopular practice, Senator Ian Le Marquand, the former Magistrate, warned clampers that they risked being sued for substantial damages and could be committing a criminal offence if they demanded money for removing clamps.
He said it was his legal opinion that clampers who demanded money to release vehicles and those who ‘marched people down to the cash machine’ could be criminally guilty of ‘demanding money with menaces’.
The Senator said: ‘If I was clamped, the advice I would give myself as a lawyer would be to offer the clampers the sum of money I regarded as reasonable in settlement for the damage I had done,’
‘If they refused to take that sum off me, I would make a written note that I had offered this sum and they had refused it. I would say to them that if they did not release the car, I would bring damages against them.’
• See Thursday’s JEP for full story – and find out the surprising owner of one of St Helier’s clamping hotspots.
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
We parked our car one winters evening in the empty car park of a hotel that was closed for the season, when visiting a friend’s house. We got back to our car about 1am and the 2 clampers were in their 4×4 being extremely smug, there was another couple there who had been clamped also and they had called the police, but they didn’t seem to be able to assist in anyway. The clampers wanted £150 from us to release our car, we were living on the North coast at the time so we needed to get our car unclamped to get home, also it was very cold. The clampers at first didn’t care how we got to an ATM, they suggested we walk to the hospital ATM or up Queens Road to the Powerhouse ATM, they were happy to sit and wait. Eventually they agreed to give us a lift to the ATM, we got the £150 and they unclamped us. It was a complete disgrace. This change in the law is long over due.
Report abuse
Well its ok to say that but at the time its a bit of a different story!! I was clamped at near enough midnight and told i had to pay £100 on the spot to 2 men! Slightly intimidating wouldn’t you say!! I dont think they would have listened to me if i said i was bringing damages against them unless i had my dad and my brothers behind me!! I wasp[arked in the wrong place and was clamped for it which i appreciate but instead of a clamp cant they just ticket us instead so we can actually make it home instead of standing in a car parkin the middle of the night feeling intimidated by 2 men in a van???
Report abuse
Well said Senator.
Report abuse
Ah come on if they are breaking the law stop them.
This is wishy washy rubbish advising us to stand up to the clampers on our own.
No help from the Police at all ?
Report abuse
Why has it taken more than 20 years to figure this out ?
How long before they REALLY are made illegal and stopped ?
Report abuse
It seems as though Jersey is on a quest to reward those people who chose to ignore rules. Provided the clamping area is appropriately signed and clearly states the release fee, offenders have no-one else to blame but themselves for their arrogance. I wonder what criteria Senator Le Marquand would use to arrive at the “sum of money [I] regarded as reasonable in settlement for the damage [I had] done”… ??
Personally, I’d question the judgement of someone who had totally disregarded private parking signs for their own selfish needs.
Keep on clamping !! These self-obsessed individuals must be held to account.
Report abuse
I see in today’s paper the Min. for Home Affairs, is giving his opinion on how criminals could avoid paying. Shame his support is with those doing wrong, and not those rate payers that are just trying to get on with their lives without being done wrong by.
I like his opinion that the, damages paid(punishment), for a crime need only reflect that cost actually incurred. You think he’d agree to a fine of nil for speeding that hasn’t resulted in any damage?
While I’m sure his words are carefully chosen to be ‘correct’, I think he’s missing the point of what he should be doing in the interests of justice, fair play and the effective government of the island, by taking a stance against a practical, reasonable solution.
I think his comment about a court case stating that the clamper had no legal right to clamp, after which that clamper stopped clamping is a bit misleading: while not untrue it should perhaps be pointed out that the clamper won an appeal in that case, and while true that he subsequently stopped clamping that that was after another 15years or so of making a living clamping and because he died, not as a result of the court case at all.
Report abuse
Just another example of how long it takes for the States to get their collective a**e into gear and state the obvious !!!
Report abuse
J LAMBORRARI. better be careful, you are calling people criminals, that is simply your opinion it seems, there is NO law to be broken here except,that to quote Ian,”could be criminally guilty of demanding money with menaces” how uncomfortable when suddenly the hunter becomes the hunted, sooner this is properly outlawed the better.
Report abuse
If clamping is to be allowed then CH’s story (#1) shows that it should only be allowed in areas where wrongful parking is causing an obstruction or serious inconvenience to someone, NOT just in places where it will make someone a small fortune for no real reason.
It must take a fairly pathetic individual to consider it right to clamp someone using a car park that they know to belong to a business that is shut for some time. I’m not going to complain if my neighbours use my driveway when they know I’m away, if anything it makes the place more secure.
Report abuse
truthseeker “… there is NO law to be broken here except…”
What about trespass?
Trouble is trespass would need to be taken to the Royal Court, which isn’t reasonable or practical for a land owners parking control needs.
It’s also the reason that for years the relevant States departments haven’t bothered to address the issue, because it would mean addressing Jersey’s trespass laws, which seems to be too difficult.
The argument that land owners are responsible for fortifying their land against trespass is ridiculous, where do you draw the line; or is parking different to every other trespass? for example if I walk into a hotel and stay the night could I avoid payment if caught? what about if you forget to lock you door, you’d be okay with me spending the day in your house while your at work; you’re not using it, so what’s the problem??
The Sen. also says a person should offer a ‘reasonable’ amount, who decides what is reasonable? If I call out an electrician and he arrives to find the TV wasn’t in, should I offer 50p as a reasonable sum for his 30sec. fix?
Simple fact is people need to respect private property, and pay for services when provided. Absolutely clampers shouldn’t be aggressive, but there’d be no need if people clamped just paid without argument.
Report abuse
The problem is its easy money. In the UK its rife, there are little or no controls over who clamps, and shall we say to certain sectors of the community its a license to print. Sadly it would appear the lower life forms have evolved here and are also exploiting an area of the law our ‘wonderful’ States have overlooked for too many years. I wonder which one of our Ministers has been clamped recently, possibly provoking this outcome?!?!?
Report abuse
Ban it. It’s wrong and its a menace to civilised society.
Report abuse
Wheel clamping has been conducted in Jersey for at least 30 years, during which time thousands of motorists have not only experienced the rudeness, harassment and inconvenience of the clampers, they have also parted with many thousands of pounds in “fines”. For all those years Government has been indifferent to public complaints whilst the Crown Officers and Courts have allowed the situation to continue unresolved. The years of neglect are now exposed.
It’s gratifying to hear Senator Le Marquand confirm that, in his opinion, clamping is and always has been unlawful. Now we need to make it a criminal offence; thirty years late.
So the truth is out that wheel clamping is unlawful. One wonders why the previous Home Affairs Minister refused to even consider making it an offence? The Green Paper issued last year clear wanted legalization and regulation on the English model. That suited the vested interest of commercial landowners who use the practice of clamping as an inexpensive way to police their car parks, thereby avoiding the erection and maintenance of barriers.
Senator Le Marquand thinks like a lawyer because he is trained as one, and it takes an understanding of law and the interpretation of rules to really comprehend the issues. We all know about the low calibre of many States Members so don’t expect them to be able to follow the legal complexities, the difference between English and Jersey law principles, let alone the Human Rights implications concerning denial of due process and right of appeal.
I recommend the excellent working paper by the RAC Foundation that looks more broadly at some of the fundamental legal and ethical aspects of vehicle immobilization, whilst the Annex is a useful summary of the relevant English and Scots law.
http://www.racfoundation.org/files/CLAMPING%20PAPER%20(Elliott)%20-%20FINAL%20060709.pdf
As a final note, don’t expect the commercial landowners to roll over to have their tummies tickled. They will be lobbying the more reactionary States members with arguments about the inalienable rights of private property.
As the French philosopher and racing driver Jean Jacques Rousseau noted “Men are born free, but everywhere their cars are in chains.”
Report abuse
I wonder how Senator Ian Le Marquand would feel if someone parked on his private property.
I live at the Waterfront apartments and pay for my parking space.
There is nothing more annoying than going out to do my shopping to find someone parked in my space when I return.
The carpark is clearly marked ‘Residents Only’ and every space is marked with the apartments number, yet some people just take no notice!
The next time someone parks in my space he can expect a phone call !
Report abuse
J Lamborrari- thankfully, parking where you shouldn’t is not a criminal offence nor should it be.
Report abuse
Is letting your car tyre down, jacking up your car, dropping the clamp off your wheel, then pumping tyre back up and driving off illegal?
If clamping itself is illegal then surely it is not illegal to remove someones illegal property from your vehicle? Can anybody think of any legal problems with doing this?
Report abuse
“The next time someone parks in my space he can expect a phone call !”
Now here’s an idea.
Replace car registration numbers with the owner’s phone number!
Report abuse
cp “…thankfully, parking where you shouldn’t is not a criminal offence nor should it be…”
Actually you’re wrong, it may be a criminal offence to park where one is not permitted, it depends on the individual circumstances.
So rather than pick on particular words, re-read what I wrote replacing ‘criminals’ law breakers, and ‘crime’ with unlawful act to satisfy the lawyer in you.
Now do you disagree with the substance of what I’ve written? That a minister should be working to uphold the law, and prevent people breaking it, rather than seeming to just be trying to help law breakers continue to break the law at their convenience and supplying them with legal methods of avoiding court actions.
How do you think the Minister would react if another lawyer started publishing instructions on how to avoid paying parking tickets, or how to weasel out of convictions for other offences?
Report abuse
clamping a car doesn’t actually solve the issue. think about it. obstruction or parking illegally and clamping a car just lengthens the time the car will be there causing further obstruction?? if you have no money to release it, then it simply stays there until such time it is towed.
a fine is more than sufficient one woudl beleive and heavy handed techniques to force people to pay up are somewhat questionable.
Report abuse
pt, you’re right, but the reason most places clamp is that those people who feel it’s their right to park wherever they want don’t bother to pay their parking tickets/invoices/fines either.
Report abuse
Interesting observations from the HA Minister. It might be worth asking Housing and Property Services regarding their use of clampers on States owned land. Who gets the fees paid to the clamping companies from the trespass on States property? Do the clamping companies pass on any of these fees? If the practice is unlawful as suggested by the HA Minister why are States Departments continuing to use this tactic?
Report abuse
At the risk of being boring…there is a short post like a short scaffold pole which can lie down or be locked upright, I’m sure you’ve seen them, leave your space leave it up…job done, all this other distress and pandemonium not needed.landlords rights protected,the gangster approach and willful entrapment for profit is what must go,for as times get tougher those same people may take up debt collecting with a baseball bat.
Report abuse
I carry my own clamp around and when I park up I put it on. When the clampers turn up they think its already been clamped and pass it by!
Report abuse
I totally agree with # 20 & 22. So J Lamborrari
How do you answer #20, clamped car, person wants to use their space, clamped owner has no funds with them. The owner still has to find another space to park, hope it isn’t in a clamping area.
You also fail to answer, if I remove the clamp, without damaging it in anyway & leave it in the space where the vehicle was clamped, what can you do about it, nothing. Unless you happen to know my name and address, Data protection steps in; you cannot get these details from my registration number. In my opinion, if they did get these details, they and however provided the details are breaking the law, the clamping firm will lose out!
And before you come back with the comment, it is impossible to remove a clamp or without damaging it, anything is possible!
These clamping firms use heavy handed tactics, bully and harass, they will not even provide you with their name, address or a receipt of payment. They will not accept a Cheque / credit card as payment. Why not? If the payment is agreed & made, the payee stops or cancels the payment, they can be taken to Petit Debts.
And when the clamper is wrongly clamped late at night or on a weekend, what recourse can you take, none, its pay-up or stay clamped.
Good riddance to the clampers, the sooner the better.
Report abuse
I think its not so much the clamping, its who has clamped who!!!
If you get a professional company for example G4 then the clampers there are professional, and trained on people skills
The clamper who works for Homes Trust is a bully, and he will clamp regardless, just because at the moment he can, one of the only reasons i would want this new law to come into place, is to see people like him with no power!!!!
Report abuse
Senator Ian Le Marquand should never be his own lawyer. I severely doubt that asking someone to pay money to have a ‘Denver Boot’ (wheel clamp) removed would amount to demanding money with menaces – a common law offence and I suspect that the A.G. would support his view.
In my view demanding money with menaces is one step down from robbery, a really serious offence which would ordinarily be tried in the Royal Court. In my view menaces means that some sort of threat would have to be made by the offender. Merely declining to remove a wheel clamp until a sum of money is paid is not enough.
And before anyone starts whinging about my point of view, in the majority of cases I don’t support wheel clamping. I just think that if the States want to put a stop to this type of action, they should debate the issue in the States and introduce legilation.
Report abuse
I live in a developments of apartments in Town and had to pay a £25,000 for a parking place when I purchased the apartment. All spaces are clearly marked and signs are displayed ‘private parking residents only’. We use the services of a clamping company because despite the signs people still park there. I still return home to find a vehicle in my space. I cannot park on the road outside as this is now residents parking and I would have to buy a Parish residents parking permit, so I have to go to the nearest public car park and walk back to my apartment. Maybe I should park in the Senators driveway. I do feel thought that once the user of a vehicle that has been clamped has contacted the clamping company, the clamping company should obtain full details of that person the clamp removed and a time period given for appeal or payment. The fee is a civil matter between the clamper and the user of the vehicle it is nothing to do with the police. If need be the fee can be recovered through the petty debts court. Just because a parking space is empty does not automatically give you the right to park in it. Unless it is on the roadside or in a public car park the chances are you are not permitted to park there.
Report abuse
PJ, #25.
Re: #20. The person who clamped the vehicle wrongfully using the space will be working for the rightful user of the space. I would expect alternative arrangements for the rightful parker to be made as part of the parking control system. I recognise that clamping prolongs the blocking of the space, but without a practical alternative that’s just part of the problem caused by the unlawful parker. Maybe that’s why the cost of being clamped seems so high, part of that cost goes to recompense the rightful parker for inconvenience.
You’re right that I’ve failed to answer a question not actually asked of me, but I will now.
If you were to remove the clamp without damage then the only problem I foresee is whether tampering with the device is considered trespass against the owner of the clamp.
And you are wrong with regards to data protection, a common misconception, I could get the name and address of the registered keeper of a vehicle from the DVS; I believe the cost of this information is £5.50
Again I agree that SOME firms do the job in a poor fashion, but take issue with these firms not the task. If you got terrible treatment from a shopkeeper would you seek to make all retailers illegal?
Report abuse
“Merely declining to remove a wheel clamp until a sum of money is paid is not enough.”
Perhaps not for that offence ZBD but it may sail close to the wind for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace!!
Report abuse
ZBD – Just to clarify Senator Le Marquand’s legal observations.
The act of placing the clamp on a vehicle is a tort against the owner, a civil offence not a criminal offence. However the demanding of money from an unlawful act is a criminal offence. Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 codifies the offence of demanding money with menaces, although it only applies to England and Wales its basis is the Common Law offence. The legal definition of menaces is far wider than mere threats or violence, it encompasses any demand that has consequences. In this cases immobilisation of your vehicle.
You are right in the fact primary legislation clears up any ambiguity that the common law creates.
Report abuse
“…as times get tougher those same people may take up debt collecting with a baseball bat.”
Truthseeker shares my view on these matters.
Deprived of this easy form of income they are hardly likely to seek jobs as careworkers.
It’s just the same if drugs were sorted out.
The suppliers and dealers wouldn’t sit back and say “That was good while it lasted, now I had better find a 9-5 job”.
Report abuse
Stuart why not buy a post and bolt it to the floor. when you leave your £25,000 parking space lock the post upright – that way no one can park there. The posts and bolts can be bought and fitted for about £100. You must have £100 if you can afford £25,000 on a parking space. Surely this would be better than clamping people who simply may have made an innocent mistake?
Report abuse
In reply to C Le Verdic.#18
If you read my comment as it was intended, I clearly meant that it would be Senator Le Marquand that I would be telephoning !
BUT maybe it would be a thought that if someone parked in my space they could at least leave a telephone number and time of parking on display so that I didn’t have to keep bothering my neighbours to see if someone was just visiting in order that they are not clamped.
#28 Stuart. My feeling exactly, well said.
Report abuse
Bubbles # 30, I disagree that it could amount to conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. Since the stated case of R – v – Howell 1981, a breach of the peace could only occur when there was violence, or threats of violence, or threats of damage to a person’s property in the owner’s presence.
Thanks David # 31, I don’t dispute that placing a ‘denver boot’ may constitute a civil tort, however demanding money with menaces in Jersey, is based on the 1916 Larceny Act not the Theft Act 1968. Nevertheless I take your point.
There could be an amendment to the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law…I believe this has been changed since I left the Island. If my memory serves me correctly, Article 29 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1969 created the offence of tampering with a motor vehicle. The States would have to amend the definintion of mechanism and the locations where this type of offence could occur. This would make a less serious offence that could easily be dealt with at a Parish Hall Enquiry, or in the Magistrates Court.
Having said all that, I agree that in some circumstances fitting a wheel clamp should be allowed. I wouldn’t like it if some inconsiderate numbskull, parked their car in a parking space for which I’d paid lots of money to use.
Report abuse
Mad Scouser #33, what about those who ignore the post and park anyway, without the claim of innocence, just because they want to and can?
Report abuse
Well, I re read I Disagree’s original post and have concluded that it will all make sense if the
person who parks there turns out to be Senator Le Marquand.
Report abuse
J Lamborrari – they wouldnt be able to park there because there is a metal post stopping them.
Report abuse
ZBD #35
I would agree that those empowered by statute should retain a right to immobilize a vehicle. This was part of the dicta in Black v Carmichael 1991, the Scottish case that outlawed clamping on private land.
Whether the case could be applied in Jersey law, bearing in mind it could be viewed as persuasive precedent, makes a good moot. Under the Larceny Act deprivation does not need to be permanent and this was the ratio discendi of the Judegment in Black.
However, a moot it will most likely remain and legislation will be required to clear up any ambiguity in this area of the law. Regulation would be costly and unworkable. Therefore a simple amendment to the section of the road Traffic Act you describe seems the best route. After all in Gosselin V AG 1990 the law officers must have advised the police this was the case anyway. The appeal was upheld on the basis that art.25(2) only applied to ‘the road’ or ‘public place’,not to private car parks. However it did hold that clamping was prima facie tampering with a motor vehicle contrary to art.25(2). The inference here being that if the car had been on public property the conviction would have stud.
I think somebody has already made the point that if WEB is public land, they are breaking the law.
As a person who, I think, understands the law would you agree clamping subverts due process, whereas a private ticket system allows a right of appeal in Petty Debts. Right of appeal Art 6 ECHR is a basic human right, the RAC have argued clamping contravenes human rights legislation, not that we really bother with human rights in Jersey.
Report abuse
David # 39……I am a retired SoJP cop and I am somewhat rusty on Jersey law. I think amending the law on tampering, or vehicle interference would be the best course of action to deter inapproapriate use of the ‘Denver Boot.’
I think your idea of taking civil action to deter people parking in another person’s private parking area would be good.
As for the Human Rights Act 1998 (as it is here in the U.K.) – well let’s just say it concentrates too much on the welfare of the wrong doer. I totally agree that the state should ensure fairness and make sure that law enforcement bodies don’t act inapproariately. More importantly however it needs to protect the rights of victims.
Report abuse
@ Mad Scouser #38
Tahnks for trying to answer the question, but try again actually addressing it this time:
What about those that DO park despite the metal post you suggest?
If you don’t have an answer to this maybe you should rethink your views on the subject.
Report abuse
J Lamborrari 41,
It is physically impossible to park in a space which has an upright post in the middle!
Report abuse
“It is physically impossible to park in a space which has an upright post in the middle!”
Ah, yes, eh, but someone could park outside the the post thereby depriving the owner of the use of the space.
Then, perhaps, the owner could have the offending vehicle clamped. Eh?
Report abuse
C le Verdic – unlikely, you are getting desparate now.
Report abuse
The see saw comments now seem to show that the clampers are just trying to defend their questionable racket, No one in their right mind is going ti risk obvious damage to their vehicle trying to park where a post is erected……so get over it guys,as it looks like you have lost this one……
Report abuse
@ Mad Scouser #42.
You are wrong, and that you can’t see why you’re wrong shows that you’re unable to view the situation from both, or even all, sides.
I don’t expect you to figure out why you’re wrong, but please ask yourself whether, that being the case, you should re-think your view on the subject.
@ truthseeker #45.
Unfortunately the reason for ‘see-sawing’ is because those opposed to clamping can’t accept they’re wrong in some of their statements.
You’ve made an incorrect statement, it’s been correctly countered with an opposing argument. You can’t then use this as evidence that those who are correct are making any kind of desperate argument; quite the opposite.
This is an argument, or one point at least, that YOU have lost.
Report abuse
J Lamborarri, I am neither for nor agaisnt clampers and I dont believe I have said anything in support of or agaisnt clamping. Whereas, you are clearly for clamping.
My comments relate to avoiding ‘clamping’ situations in the first place, please feel free to trawl through and find a comment of mine which is for or agaisnt clamping and by all means quote me on it.
For those who have parking spaces which might be invaded by unauthorised vehicles – purchase a post. For those who are illegally clamped simply let down your tyre, jack up your car, and the clamp should come off with a wiggle. For the clampers out there, make sure you display correct signage and be polite – it seems the Jersey courts will be more ameniable to polite nuisance and if you have J Lamborarri on your side you may win!
Report abuse
Wow! this subject has certainly stirred up a Hornet’s nest of conflicting correspondence!Understandably as since the 1980′s Governments have been trying to think up non jobs for people to do at the expense of the “Man in the Street” or in this case (And in far too many others)the man “In his car!”. The whole thinking behind this and the idea of making an exorbitant on the spot fine payable to “Cover costs” came about in that 1980′s era when money was flowing like water and little thought was being given to there being an economic downturn, and even less thought was being given to the elderly driver with a limited fixed income who might be temporarily bankrupted by making a mistake as to where they were parking!
No if you owned a car you could afford to pay/pay/pay, and the result fines and penalties for parking that in amount far exceed those imposed in our Courts for far more serious crimes!
Let’s get down to the “Nitty gritty”:
1)Wheel clamping is intimidating.
2)Wheel clamping is confrontational.
3)Wheel clamping is in certain circumstances dangerous. (The lone woman forced to walk home or to a distant ATM at night, or having to get into a vehicle with unknown male individuals who could be anybody!)
4)Wheel clamping is a cheap option. You have alternatives as a private land owner e.g. proper security fences and gates and private parking space holders you have anti parking posts which can even raise and lower automatically when you vacate your space. If I was like one gent above who paid £25000 for his parking space I would insist the developer of my flat install one as a standard fitting.
5)Wheelclampers if necessary at all should be regulated by the proper authorities who should at least know who the individuals are, and how about a police check on their background given the situation highlighted in 3) above.
No the Home Affairs Minister is right, this whole practice needs to be re-assessed and either subjected to a strictly enforced code of practice or else banned altogether!There are other more satisfactory options to this “Vigilante” approach.
It might also possibly encourage Governments to think up more constructive paid employment for these people e.g. supervising people clearing up their used chewing gum from the pavement for instance, or fitting seagull proof lids on badly designed litter bins in public places (Broad St in St Helier), clearing smelly seaweed and rubbish from our beaches etc.
Report abuse
Nick # 48 (5). In the U.K. wheel clampers are regulated by the Security Industry Authority, the same people who regulate door supervisors at pubs and clubs. They also regulate private investigators. Any changes to the legislation on wheel clamping – provided it isn’t banned – should consider regulation of those performing in this role.
Report abuse
@ Mad Scouser #47.
I won’t bother going through your old post as I’ve never made any claim that you’re either for or against clamping, so have nothing to prove in that respect.
Whereas you say I’m clearly for clamping; you must be a creature of habit, cause again you’re wrong; as I’m actually not ‘for’ clamping, I’d prefer there was no clamping, but I’m not going to call for it to be banned unless a practical and reasonable alternative can be put in place.
And again the only advice you offer doesn’t actually work!
@ ZBD #49
As luck would have it the owner of the wheel clamping company that has been singled out in the JEP etc. recently also runs a door security company, and the individual that has been mentioned in a very negative light on more than one occasion is a card carrying doorman.
Report abuse
J Lambourarri,
your initial comment which led me to believe you are ‘for’ clamping was this,
“Simple fact is people need to respect private property, and pay for services when provided. Absolutely clampers shouldn’t be aggressive, but there’d be no need if people clamped just paid without argument.”
My advice does work for I can actually prove it does – clamps will come off, and cars purely by the laws of physics cannot park in spaces with anti-parking posts in them!
Report abuse
Le Verdic “It is physically impossible to park in a space which has an upright post in the middle!”
Not if you have a car with a hole in the middle!
Report abuse
J Lamborrari # 50. The door supervisor registration scheme in Jersey used to include vetting by the police, to establish a person’s suitability for the role (i.e. he / she didn’t have a record of assualts or drug dealing etc) This was followed by training on the Licensing Law, Misuse of Drugs Law, conflict resolution, fire safety and first aid.
What training do wheel clampers have in Jersey? In the U.K. they have to pass a Security Industry Authority (S.I.A.) course which is role specific.
Report abuse
@ human #51
The comment from me that you quote doesn’t state that I’m for clamping; just that I’m for respect of property, payment of a service used and against aggresion and conflict.
Your advice, which I don’t see in this thread, may work sometimes, but I’ve seen it tried more than once without success.
As for the laws of physics; what do they say about the parking of a motorcycle? or two? or three? what do they say about those people who park their car across the remainder of the private space, thus making it unusable??
Nothing? So, still no practical alternative being offered by the anti-clamping camp.
Report abuse
J Lamborarri,
As far as Im aware they cannot clamp motorbikes. If they clamped a vehicle parked across the spaces, that would make the situation worse would it not! I have successfully removed a clamp by the method of which I speak.
As they say in liverpool – whatever Trevor!
Report abuse