Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 129689 2013-03-06 08:32:00 3rd Degree & The Wheel Claper Cato (6936) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
1331606 2013-03-07 19:44:00 ...
The wheel clamper is lower in my estimation than anyone in the third Reich.
So, would an estimate of a job to be done at your workshop be a bit "unusual" too? ;) 		R2x1 (4628)
1331607 2013-03-08 09:58:00 Yep - a sensationalist story backed up with no legal insight or opinion from the program - just relying on snippets of info that suited the story they wanted to get across.

For those that are interested this is the legislation that Police referred to that meant the clamper needed a licence;


Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010


Section 9 - Meaning of property guard

(1) In this Act, property guard means a person who for valuable consideration, either by himself or herself or in partnership with any other person, carries on a business—

(a) guarding, elsewhere than on premises owned or occupied by himself or herself or his or her firm or any of his or her partners, any real or personal property belonging to another person;



Section 23 - Persons who must hold licence

(1) The following persons must hold a licence under this Act:

(a) a private investigator:

(b) a security technician:

(c) a security consultant:

(d) a confidential document destruction agent:

(e) a property guard:

(f) a personal guard:

(g) a crowd controller.

(2) Every person who contravenes this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction,—

(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $40,000:


(2) A person is not a property guard solely because he or she does the work described in section 8.

The full act can be found here (www.legislation.govt.nz) if you really want to get into it 		Tukapa (62)
1331608 2013-03-08 19:22:00 So, would an estimate of a job to be done at your workshop be a bit "unusual" too? ;)
When they ask for estimates or quotes its always the same : "****loads". 		prefect (6291)
1331609 2013-03-08 20:51:00 <Snip

Yep - a sensationalist story backed up with no legal insight or opinion from the program - just relying on snippets of info that suited the story they wanted to get across.
Snip>

Apart from the cast - an arrogant clamper, a well-meaning but ineffectual Mayor, the clumsy local plods, and a wrathful old biddy - the main loser was TV3.

TV3 blew its chance to fly a current affairs program that could have been focused, and hard-hitting, but the content was anything but captivating. A bit like our crime reporters item a few years ago that drew the world's attention to the heinous theft of a 15 year old Ford Cortina (earning the derision of international commentators) :lol:

The second part was a report of what the very presentable Anna Guy was up to. Without being negative about or to, Ms Guy, this is another TV disaster akin to Sally Ridge and her offspring.

What a waste of talent in the form of Duncan Garner and Guyon Espinor. Here were two seasoned and respected political commentators effectively muzzled and presumably commanded by their masters to front a second rate tabloid type presentation.

I for one won't bother watching the program again.

:annoyed:

PS Best wishes to Ms Guy who is picking up her life as best she can. :) 		WalOne (4202)
1331610 2013-03-08 21:36:00 Them and 7 sharp are places for life's losers to run to when they come up against a bit of flak. A few years ago when you were up against it you just invoked the British stiff upper lip and carried on and sorted it out yourself not running to the tabloid press. I dont even take my own advice I am a revenge get even person, never forget keep plotting till you get them back. On the Coast if a new cop came to town and laid down the law he was given a few indirect warnings then his veranda would be blown off his house. prefect (6291)
1331611 2013-03-08 21:57:00 Yep - a sensationalist story backed up with no legal insight or opinion from the program - just relying on snippets of info that suited the story they wanted to get across.

For those that are interested this is the legislation that Police referred to that meant the clamper needed a licence;


Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010


Section 9 - Meaning of property guard

(1) In this Act, property guard means a person who for valuable consideration, either by himself or herself or in partnership with any other person, carries on a business—

(a) guarding, elsewhere than on premises owned or occupied by himself or herself or his or her firm or any of his or her partners, any real or personal property belonging to another person;



Section 23 - Persons who must hold licence

(1) The following persons must hold a licence under this Act:

(a) a private investigator:

(b) a security technician:

(c) a security consultant:

(d) a confidential document destruction agent:

(e) a property guard:

(f) a personal guard:

(g) a crowd controller.

(2) Every person who contravenes this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction,—

(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $40,000:


(2) A person is not a property guard solely because he or she does the work described in section 8.

The full act can be found here (www.legislation.govt.nz) if you really want to get into it

I would dispute that the clamper was acting as a security guard. He was penalising drivers for parking where they shouldnt on the instructions of the land owner, not 'guarding' a property. 		tut (12033)
1331612 2013-03-09 01:59:00 I would dispute that the clamper was acting as a security guard. He was penalising drivers for parking where they shouldnt on the instructions of the land owner, not 'guarding' a property.

I agree he's not acting as a security guard. He is, however, acting as a property guard.

He is carrying on a business (clamping) for valuable consideration (cash) guarding (patrolling) real or personal property (land) belonging to another person (the owners of that land).

The definition is quite clear (to me) but understandably interpreted different by others.

What this needs is a Court decision that clarifies the situation one way or the other. That will follow a prosecution. Until then (and probably after it) people will either think the legislation applies or that it doesn't apply.

Incidentally this clamper signed up to a code of conduct with other clampers etc well before any of this became an issue. You can see the code of conduct here (m.consumeraffairs.govt.nz) if interested (its quite short). He agreed to abide by this then ignored every clause in it. You will see the business practice is well set out, including a 10 minute grace period before clamping and the wearing of a uniform. These were ignored and he clamped a courier driver as they ran from their van into a shop to pick up/drop off a parcel.

It also set out that various payment methods would be made available but this clamper only accepted cash and refused any other payment method. I'm unsure how much of those cash payments would have been declared to IRD (but that's another tangent).

This TV program embarrassed itself by it's tabloid approach to the story. They clearly weren't interested in investigative journalism, rather sensationalism. But unfortunately that seems to pull the punters in. I agree with an earlier comment that the two journalists fronting it have been chopped off at the knees. 		Tukapa (62)
1331613 2013-03-09 08:05:00 I agree he's not acting as a security guard. He is, however, acting as a property guard....

I'm not so sure - if he was preventing people coming onto the property - yes, but he's not.

It is only when people overstay their welcome that he takes action like a bouncer throwing drunks out of a pub. Do they have to be licensed?? 		decibel (11645)
1331614 2013-03-09 08:51:00 I'm not so sure - if he was preventing people coming onto the property - yes, but he's not.

It is only when people overstay their welcome that he takes action like a bouncer throwing drunks out of a pub. Do they have to be licensed??

A bouncer at the minimum needs a certificate of approval under the same act and may need the licence I referred to depending on the structure of the business/employment set-up;

44 Persons who must hold certificate of approval

(1) The following individuals must hold a certificate of approval under this Act:

(a) a private investigator employee:

(b) a security technician employee:

(c) a security consultant employee:

(d) a confidential document destruction agent employee:

(e) a property guard employee:

(f) a personal guard employee:

(g) a crowd controller employee.

(2) A person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000 who—

(a) is employed, engaged as a contractor, acts, or holds himself or herself out to any person or to the public as a person of any kind specified in subsection (1); and

(b) does not hold a certificate of approval authorising him or her as a responsible employee of that kind.

(3) This section is subject to section 61. 		Tukapa (62)
1331615 2013-03-09 09:31:00 I'm not so sure - if he was preventing people coming onto the property - yes, but he's not.

It is only when people overstay their welcome that he takes action like a bouncer throwing drunks out of a pub. Do they have to be licensed??
The bouncer is meant to be licensed - the drunk may optionally be incensed. 		R2x1 (4628)
1 2 3