Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Private Clampers!!

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Victor_M
    Registered Users Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭Victor_M


    Anan1 wrote: »
    None of this addresses my point, eoin_s. If someone owns property, should they or should they not be allowed to dictate who parks on it? If it helps, try thinking of your front garden. :-)

    If a developer get permission to build 100 apartments he is legally obliged to provide 1.3 parking spaces per unit, or 130 parking spaces, plus a few handicapped spots, what has been going on of late is that the developers are ignoring the extra .3 spots and trying to charge up to 25K per extra spot if someone has a second vehicle.

    This is where the problem lies, it's an exhaustive process getting the greedy developer to provide the correct amount of overflow spaces, they usually always apply for retention, get turned down, reapply so on and so forth.
    In the mean time they employ the services of a friendly clamping company and have their pockets further lined at the expense of the residents that made them rich in the first place.
    Thankfully with the changing market a lot of them are getting their cumuppin's and going into receivership due to excessive greed and lack of saving for a rainy day. It seems a huge amount of them thought the gold rush would never end.


  • Options
    #63
    Eoin
    Registered Users Posts: 21,257 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    Anan1 wrote: »
    None of this addresses my point, eoin_s. If someone owns property, should they or should they not be allowed to dictate who parks on it? If it helps, try thinking of your front garden. :-)

    That's trespass, which is a completely different issue.


  • Options
    #64
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭maidhc


    Victor_M wrote: »
    If a developer get permission to build 100 apartments he is legally obliged to provide 1.3 parking spaces per unit, or 130 parking spaces, plus a few handicapped spots, what has been going on of late is that the developers are ignoring the extra .3 spots and trying to charge up to 25K per extra spot if someone has a second vehicle.

    Umm... I have yet to come across a developer who is going to ingore planning law. The consequences are severe, and not to mention it is necessary to get an engineer to decare the development complies with planning each time a unit is sold.

    Also the local authority will not take the estate in charge if everything is not perfect.

    Also in Cork the City Council in recent years have aggressively pursued an agenda of reducing the number of parking spaces in new apartment buildings for some unforseen reason.


  • Options
    #65
    dioltas
    Registered Users Posts: 1,183 ✭✭✭dioltas


    Here is the law on it http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0247.html.

    It says that only
    (a) a member of the Garda Síochána;

    (b) a person appointed in writing by a local authority for the said purposes;

    (c) a traffic warden.

    can clamp your car.

    Im not sure what the exact definition of a traffic warden is, but im sure these clampers are not traffic wardens or that they have been appointed by a local authority. Im not too sure, but to my mind that means it's illegal for them to clamp your car regardless of wether or not they have a sign. Maybe this law only applied to public places tho, and there's different laws for private clampers. Maybe someone else can explain this?


  • Options
    #66
    Eoin
    Registered Users Posts: 21,257 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    maidhc wrote: »
    Umm... I have yet to come across a developer who is going to ingore planning law. The consequences are severe, and not to mention it is necessary to get an engineer to decare the development complies with planning each time a unit is sold.

    Well, I can imagine that one way around this would be to create badly defined common parking areas - and this is where the cars get clamped by these cowboys.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,311 ✭✭✭markpb


    eoin_s wrote: »
    That's trespass, which is a completely different issue.

    Civil trespass which means the courts have to deal with it.
    dioltas wrote: »
    Maybe this law only applied to public places tho, and there's different laws for private clampers. Maybe someone else can explain this?

    The law says:
    These regulations give effect to section 101B of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 [...] which provides for the immobilisation of vehicles which are found to be parked on a public road in contravention of a prohibition or restriction under section 35 or section 36 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 .


  • Options
    #68
    dioltas
    Registered Users Posts: 1,183 ✭✭✭dioltas


    Fair enough, didnt read the thing properly.

    If I was to get clamped on a public road by the council, I think I'd just pay the fine. From reading this though if I was clamped in a private car park etc I'd be inclined to cut the thing off somehow and forget about it, so long as there was no cameras recording me cutting off the clamp. Luckily I've never been clamped before.


  • Options
    #69
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭maidhc


    eoin_s wrote: »
    Well, I can imagine that one way around this would be to create badly defined common parking areas - and this is where the cars get clamped by these cowboys.

    This still hs to get through planning, which, believe me, is difficult.


  • Options
    #70
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,621 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    maidhc wrote: »
    Umm... I have yet to come across a developer who is going to ingore planning law. The consequences are severe, and not to mention it is necessary to get an engineer to decare the development complies with planning each time a unit is sold.

    Also the local authority will not take the estate in charge if everything is not perfect.

    Also in Cork the City Council in recent years have aggressively pursued an agenda of reducing the number of parking spaces in new apartment buildings for some unforseen reason.

    Where have you been for the last 10 years?


  • Options
    #71
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭maidhc


    ronoc wrote: »
    Where have you been for the last 10 years?

    dealing with the stuff on daily basis.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Victor_M
    Registered Users Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭Victor_M


    maidhc wrote: »
    dealing with the stuff on daily basis.

    If you are working for a local council then you are probably blissfully unaware that developers selectively ignore some of the planning issued to them.


  • Options
    #73
    Victor_M
    Registered Users Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭Victor_M


    maidhc wrote: »
    Umm... I have yet to come across a developer who is going to ingore planning law. The consequences are severe, and not to mention it is necessary to get an engineer to decare the development complies with planning each time a unit is sold.

    Also the local authority will not take the estate in charge if everything is not perfect.

    Also in Cork the City Council in recent years have aggressively pursued an agenda of reducing the number of parking spaces in new apartment buildings for some unforeseen reason.

    Why would the Developer want the local authority to take charge of the development, when he currently owns the management company, & is making a fortune from illegal clamping, using the place to store materials from other sites, then billing the management company (which he owns) €18,000 for cleaning charges, when ordered by the high court to remove the mess he put there in the first place.

    He has no interest in Fingal taking over, his cash cow will run dry the day that happens.

    This is going on all over Fingal, can't speak for any other areas as I have no experience.


  • Options
    #74
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    I would well believe it.


  • Options
    #75
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Victor_M wrote: »
    If a developer get permission to build 100 apartments he is legally obliged to provide 1.3 parking spaces per unit, or 130 parking spaces, plus a few handicapped spots, what has been going on of late is that the developers are ignoring the extra .3 spots and trying to charge up to 25K per extra spot if someone has a second vehicle.

    This is where the problem lies, it's an exhaustive process getting the greedy developer to provide the correct amount of overflow spaces, they usually always apply for retention, get turned down, reapply so on and so forth.
    In the mean time they employ the services of a friendly clamping company and have their pockets further lined at the expense of the residents that made them rich in the first place.
    Thankfully with the changing market a lot of them are getting their cumuppin's and going into receivership due to excessive greed and lack of saving for a rainy day. It seems a huge amount of them thought the gold rush would never end.
    With respect, Victor_M, this is pure waffle. Who in their right mind would close on an apartment without looking at both the contract and the actual parking spaces? If you own a space then it's yours to park in. If the builder owns it then the builder has the right to decide who uses it.


  • Options
    #76
    Esel
    Registered Users Posts: 22,322 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    maidhc wrote: »
    I legally own out to the centre of the road (as do most people), but people can still drive and park there.
    Really? Please elaborate.

    Not your ornery onager



  • Options
    #77
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    That is true.

    You own out to the centre line of the road, but the council have taken over the section from the verge to the centre line.


  • Options
    #78
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭maidhc


    esel wrote: »
    Really? Please elaborate.

    If you live somewhere in the countryside, or have a house at the side of a public road you will see generally from your title deeds that the line extends out to the middle of the road. Housing estates tend to be different however.

    Likewise if you buy a site or a farm you will see the acerage often includes half the road. Something to be aware of. :)


  • Options
    #79
    Victor_M
    Registered Users Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭Victor_M


    Anan1 wrote: »
    With respect, Victor_M, this is pure waffle. Who in their right mind would close on an apartment without looking at both the contract and the actual parking spaces? If you own a space then it's yours to park in. If the builder owns it then the builder has the right to decide who uses it.

    With Respect Anan (seems ok to be condescending if you put a smiley after a comment;))

    All planning searches came up clean, all conveyancing was checked properly against plans, most of the people in the development moved in before it was finished, he just ignored certain parts of the planning that didn't suit him, by the time the residents noticed they were already living in their properties. If you read my previous posts, there are supposed to be in the case of apartments 1.3 spots per unit, this simply isn't the case in the development I live in along with at least 2 others close by to where I live, to date there are 8 visitor spots in a development of over 250 apartments. Doesn't directly affect me thankfully as I own a house, but waffle it is not.

    Hence the high court battle the residents have been fighting for the last 2 years plus.


  • Options
    #80
    Victor_M
    Registered Users Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭Victor_M


    .


  • Options
    #81
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭maidhc


    Victor_M wrote: »
    Why would the Developer want the local authority to take charge of the development, when he currently owns the management company, & is making a fortune from illegal clamping, using the place to store materials from other sites, then billing the management company (which he owns) €18,000 for cleaning charges, when ordered by the high court to remove the mess he put there in the first place.

    No, the apartment owners own the managment company, or at least the developer is legally obliged to transfer the managment company to them on the sale of the last apartment for a nominal sum.

    I can see how it would end up in court, but ultimately this is a cowboy operator and the game will catch up with him sooner rather than later.

    Generally the problem with apartments and managment companys is trying to make them fuction, e.g. to enforce parking for the better good of the complex.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Victor_M
    Registered Users Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭Victor_M


    maidhc wrote: »
    No, the apartment owners own the managment company, or at least the developer is legally obliged to transfer the managment company to them on the sale of the last apartment for a nominal sum.

    I can see how it would end up in court, but ultimately this is a cowboy operator and the game will catch up with him sooner rather than later.

    Generally the problem with apartments and managment companys is trying to make them fuction, e.g. to enforce parking for the better good of the complex.

    He has kept one apartment unsold. His wife is the MD of the managment company choosen to manage the property. Gangster who seems to know every trick in the book.

    The mgt company do a super job in fairness, but at the price they are charging Diarmuid Gavin should be pruning my rose bushes every week.

    They seem to be able to up the charges when ever they see fit too.

    Anyhow, we are way OT at this stage, clamping is it legal or not? I still don't know.


  • Options
    #83
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Victor_M wrote: »
    He has kept one apartment unsold. His wife is the MD of the managment company choosen to manage the property. Gangster who seems to know every trick in the book.

    The mgt company do a super job in fairness, but at the price they are charging Diarmuid Gavin should be pruning my rose bushes every week.

    They seem to be able to up the charges when ever they see fit too.

    Anyhow, we are way OT at this stage, clamping is it legal or not? I still don't know.
    I have to admit, in a situation like that i'd be in full agreement with you.


  • Options
    #84
    Fr.Frost
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭Fr.Frost


    Does anyone know how to remove one w/o damaging it?????


  • Options
    #85
    Thomas_S_Hunterson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,151 ✭✭✭Thomas_S_Hunterson


    Fr.Frost wrote: »
    Does anyone know how to remove one w/o damaging it?????

    Pick the lock?


  • Options
    #86
    eringobragh
    Registered Users Posts: 3,668 ✭✭✭eringobragh


    Fr.Frost wrote: »
    Does anyone know how to remove one w/o damaging it?????

    Some tips...(Some methods require damage)

    http://www.autoinfozone.com/clamp2.html

    Enjoy ;)


  • Options
    #87
    mikemac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,986 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    maidhc wrote: »
    If you live somewhere in the countryside, or have a house at the side of a public road you will see generally from your title deeds that the line extends out to the middle of the road. Housing estates tend to be different however.

    So if a farmer owns half the road, why does the council have to maintain it?
    Is the farmer/owner obliged to pay a levy for the upkeep of the road? And say the council wanted to widen the road, could the owner say no way, not on my patch?
    I doubt the owner can do much, it's very interesting anyway


  • Options
    #88
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭maidhc


    micmclo wrote: »
    So if a farmer owns half the road, why does the council have to maintain it?

    Because that is their statutory duty
    micmclo wrote: »
    Is the farmer/owner obliged to pay a levy for the upkeep of the road?

    No, of course not. It is a public thoroughfare and in the charge of the Council. Legal ownership is one thing, but the rights and responsibilties in relation to it are another.... e.g. half of Dublin is legally "owned" a a few Landlords in the UK (e.g. the Pembroke estates), but that "ownership" isn't worth much.
    micmclo wrote: »
    And say the council wanted to widen the road, could the owner say no way, not on my patch?

    If they tried encroaching on the ditches they would have to pay compensation.


  • Options
    #89
    craichoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭craichoe


    maidhc wrote: »
    Because that is their statutory duty



    No, of course not. It is a public thoroughfare and in the charge of the Council. Legal ownership is one thing, but the rights and responsibilties in relation to it are another.... e.g. half of Dublin is legally "owned" a a few Landlords in the UK (e.g. the Pembroke estates), but that "ownership" isn't worth much.



    If they tried encroaching on the ditches they would have to pay compensation.

    Actually you can lose a couple of feet off your land if you cut down a hedge and erect a wall as it has to be moved a certain distance away from the road.


Advertisement