Clamped... oh come on!

vector

while clearly everyone is talking about a city council area, I was wondeirng why local authorities in more rural areas (county councils) don't employ clampers, I'm glad they don't of course, but it would a be a huge cash cow they could clamp all cars parked in the endless housing estates (and even when residents got permits they could clamp visitors), even if they didn't the gardai could collect some revenue from cars parked on footpaths (which is verboten)

Anan1

vector wrote:

while clearly everyone is talking about a city council area, I was wondeirng why local authorities in more rural areas (county councils) don't employ clampers, I'm glad they don't of course, but it would a be a huge cash cow they could clamp all cars parked in the endless housing estates (and even when residents got permits they could clamp visitors), even if they didn't the gardai could collect some revenue from cars parked on footpaths (which is verboten)

Because those people didn't ask for resident disc parking?

vector

Anan1, you quoted too much, which bit are you answering?

Anan1

vector wrote:

Anan1, you quoted too much, which bit are you answering?

Sorry, what I meant to say is that, AFAIK, resident disc parking is only introduced where local residents demand it. This usually happens in areas where people from outside the area want to park for the day - ie near city centres, rail stations etc. This probably doesn't happen in rural housing estates, thus the lack of demand for p&d from the residents.

Victor

Hagar wrote:

Simply not true. It was introduced because the perfectly adequate parking laws as they existed at the time were not being enforced. They couldn't find the will to enforce them so they put a fresh spin on them by clamping. Anything the UK does will soon be aped in Ireland.

I suspect there were as many traffic wardens as there are now clampers. So it is the deterrent value of getting clamped (and the higher fee for releasing the clamp) that has made the difference. The previous enforcement regime failed, because it didn't have a deterrence value. Something like 50% of people just didn't pay the parking meter. Nuisance parking only got you a modest fine.

ninja900 wrote:

I don't know about other councils, but Dublin City Council actually makes a loss on pay and display parking and clamping.

The clamping / towing is a straight loss maker for the council. I suspect residents permits and similar probably break even. They do make money from P&D, but when you look at how much 25m2 of road (parking space + circulation) used for parking makes per day compared to the amount made by 1m2 of shop floor, they are probably losing money.

I demanded to speak to her supervisor and frankly was so angry my face was probably beetroot red at this point..she just said ok, charged me the 10 euro and that was that - she made a huge huffing and puffing about updating the clampers database for the old reg

Just because you cna get a repalcement, doesn't mean you should be able to get it "just like that".

(why didn't this fupping database already have the owners names on it and the related parking entitlements??!!)...not that this mattered one iota to me.

Because as a compliant parker, the clampers had no need to now about you / the car. Or would you rather (local) government hand your personal detaisl to private companies "just like that".

Would be nice if when you register your new car that your permits are automatically updated also..but then thats cloud cuckoo land thinking..such efficiency doesn't happen here.

Data Protection Act? Separation of powers?

Zascar wrote:

but to clamp me twice in 1 week for parking in the same spot I have for the last year, right outsode my house where there are Always plenty of free spaces... its not like I am not taking up spaces needed my anyone else... Surely there are 100's of cars more worthy of a clamp than me!

That sounds like someone has made a complaint and that on the face of it, that complaint has some justification.

maidhc

Victor wrote:

Data Protection Act?

Can be avoided easily by public bodies (s8(e)).

The fact clamping is a loss making enterprise is baffling. They have a monopoly of putting locks on illegally parked cars and can demand a charge which far outweighs the labour requirments for doing so.

Victor

maidhc wrote:

The fact clamping is a loss making enterprise is baffling. They have a monopoly of putting locks on illegally parked cars and can demand a charge which far outweighs the labour requirments for doing so.

So, you tender for the contract next time.

maidhc

Victor wrote:

So, you tender for the contract next time.

I haven't yet sold my soul to the devil.

Anan1

maidhc wrote:

Can be avoided easily by public bodies (s8(e)).

The fact clamping is a loss making enterprise is baffling. They have a monopoly of putting locks on illegally parked cars and can demand a charge which far outweighs the labour requirments for doing so.

Are you sure about that?

maidhc

Anan1 wrote:

Are you sure about that?

The data protection act?

As regards public bodies it does have very lax requirments, e.g. they don't need consent to process data (s2a &2b), also if they are doing someting required by statute then very little of the act applied (s8), while broad exemptions are also built into other legislation such as s60 of the Finance Act (establishing the NVDF), and the statutory instruments made under it.

JimmySmith

I was sitting in the car one day waiting for the brother and there were about 10 cars clamped along the road near Synge street.
A guy came out of a house which was being renovated, went to a clamped van and took out this huge bolt cutter. He went along every clamped car and cut up the clamps and piled them all up on the footpath along with the stickers from the windows.
People were cheering him on .... Classic.
I should have stayed around to see the faces on the clampers when they returned.

Anan1 wrote:

Sorry, what I meant to say is that, AFAIK, resident disc parking is only introduced where local residents demand it. This usually happens in areas where people from outside the area want to park for the day - ie near city centres, rail stations etc. This probably doesn't happen in rural housing estates, thus the lack of demand for p&d from the residents.

Thats what they say but Ask the people who live in grosvenor square in Rathmines what happened there. About 4 years ago They all got a letter saying that they had asked for parking control on the square. Someone challenged them to produce details. They then sent a voting card type thing to everyone and asked them to 'vote'. The council/corporation lost, so the split the square into 2 zones, they got a no form both zones. Then they split into 4 zones, (each row of houes on the square). They got a 'yes' vote from one side and this was then made pay parking. There were hardly any cars parked here, so the other 3 sides were now filling up to capacity. 6 months later a new ballot, and another side voted yes and it went on until council got their way. All 4 sides of the square are now pay parking. There are up to 10 flats per house and only 1 Parking permit per house was allowed. A lot of people ended up moving.
Very unfair.

maidhc

JimmySmith wrote:

There are up to 10 flats per house and only 1 Parking permit per house was allowed. A lot of people ended up moving.
Very unfair.

This is my problem with the whole residents parking permit thing. If the pay parking is being introduced for bona fide residents how can you justify giving parking rights to some and not to others on the abritrary basis of whether they have a door opening onto the street. Commuters (such as myself) should be provided with *some spaces*, but park and ride should make up the balance.

Furthermore this is compounded in Cork by the City Council's absolute refusal to allow UG carparks in most apartment complexes. In one development in Camden Quay the developer was told there was a multistory carpark closeby, and the resident could park there. In another development at the corner of Anglesea street the developer got UG carparking after an almightly battle just short of going to an Bord Pleanala.

As everybody except the city council knows it is not really economically feasible to pay to park permenantly in a multistory carpark, especially when that carpark is already at capacity as most are.

EDIT:
My hometown, Midleton is great. There is NO pay parking in any part of it, thanks to the businesses in the town being set against its introduction. Despite being possibly the busiest town in the County parking is never a problem and everyone is happy... which leads me to my ultimate thesis that pay parking does little other than generate revenue.

Victor

maidhc wrote:

This is my problem with the whole residents parking permit thing. If the pay parking is being introduced for bona fide residents how can you justify giving parking rights to some and not to others on the abritrary basis of whether they have a door opening onto the street.

When the street was built, a little bit of road was associated with that building, so it is probably fair.

Anan1

JimmySmith wrote:

I was sitting in the car one day waiting for the brother and there were about 10 cars clamped along the road near Synge street.
A guy came out of a house which was being renovated, went to a clamped van and took out this huge bolt cutter. He went along every clamped car and cut up the clamps and piled them all up on the footpath along with the stickers from the windows.
People were cheering him on .... Classic.
I should have stayed around to see the faces on the clampers when they returned.

I don't know where people get the idea that clampers are running some sort of a personal vendetta against motorists. They don't care, they're just doing their job. Were it not for clamping in the Synge St area, residents would never be able to park their cars. Cheap and/or simple types such as yourself may have cheered, but you can be sure local residents didn't.