clamped while on mercy mission

Welease

firefly2327 wrote: »

I've contacted FLAC today and they basically said that the company were within their right to clamp my car and they advised paying the fee, or calling NCPS and negotiating. Paying the fee isn't an option, I can't afford it, so I called NCPS again. They are adamant that I must pay the 185 euro, non negotiable. I explained to them that the car would be on the premises permanently then, they said that's fine.........
Looks like my bicycle is going to get more use from now on. Having put on extra weight lately I'm looking at that as a positive I guess..

Has your mother spoken to her management company? They are the ones contracting NCPS to provide the clamping service, so they would likely carry more weight than yourself in relation to waiving the fee given the circumstances..

Gophur

firefly2327 wrote: »

.........and a UK reg car can remain with a UK reg in the Republic for up to 12 months, legally. I'm 100% positive of all this, no question.
............

Not in the possession of an Irish resident, it can't!

slimjimmc

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

It's not criminal damage if NCPS forfeit ownership of the clamp, which they have done by making it the OP's property. They can't give her the clamp and still claim to have lawful custody of it.

How does it make sense to you that any random stranger can immobilise your car in a public place, but you aren't allowed to remove it unless you pay them an extortionate sum of money?

It's not my fault the Gardai in question (and you it seems) aren't aware of the law surrounding illegal clamping.

They did what now? Placing a clamp on a car does not make that clamp the property of the car owner/driver. That's like saying the OP's car became the property of the owner of the parking spot because the driver placed the car there.
The OP parked in the "resident's-only" car park, which suggests it was not a public place (reserved for residents and invited guests, not the public), however without full knowledge of the rules surrounding the use of the car-park, neither of us know for certain if it is a public place or not. If it's a public place then removing the clamp could be lawful, if private then removing it may not be lawful and the Garda was right to warn a suspect.

Beggared

If your tyre cost less than the clamp removal fee it might be worth cutting the tyre up so that the clamp simply falls off. Leave the clamp in the gutter, pop on your spare and drive away and buy a new tyre. You will have done no damage to anybody's property except your own so nobody can touch you.

firefly2327

Gophur wrote: »

Not in the possession of an Irish resident, it can't!

as someone who is legally resident in the UK and is only visiting Ireland (I'm neither working nor claiming benefits here) I'm not worried on that score

firefly2327

Welease wrote: »

Has your mother spoken to her management company? QUOTE]

Mother not in a fit state at the moment. I tried to get the landlords number from her, but to no avail.:mad:

ANXIOUS

Do you think everyone on boards could come together and put the theory that it is illegal to the test? The way i see it we'd need a few people. Someone to get clamped/arrested, some one to record everything and then a legal person for when it goes to court if ever.

Id probally put myself forward to get arrested if we were certain it was legal.
Would anyone else be up for doing it?

-Chris-

@all - please keep on topic - this is not a thread about whether the OP is VRT compliant or otherwise. This is a clamping-related thread.

RustyNut

Ask around among your friends if anyone knows a locksmith or keen amateur who would have the skills to pick the lock and remove it with no damage and maby attach it to the next ncps van you encounter on your travels.

corktina

Beggared wrote: »

If your tyre cost less than the clamp removal fee it might be worth cutting the tyre up so that the clamp simply falls off. Leave the clamp in the gutter, pop on your spare and drive away and buy a new tyre. You will have done no damage to anybody's property except your own so nobody can touch you.

that sounds like excellent advice that I shall remember!dont forget to deflate the tyre first!I cant see why it wouldnt work unless the chain was draped through the suspension

RustyNut

corktina wrote: »

that sounds like excellent advice that I shall remember!dont forget to deflate the tyre first!I cant see why it wouldnt work unless the chain was draped through the suspension

They run the chain through the wishbone this can also be removed if ya know a freindly mechanic, less than an hours work might work out cheeper than paying the ransom and no legal issues.

MagicSean

Op when it comes to private clamping there is no legislation governing the practice. There are two schools of thought though.

Some people believe that the clampers have no right to attach a clamp to the vehicle and that by doing so they are committing an offence under section 113 of the Road Traffic Act and also giving up ownership of the clamp. They also believe that you can legally cut off the clamp without any consequence. Although I have yet to hear of anyone cutting off a clamp in front of independent witnesses. It is generally done in secrecy which indicates that they are not too sure of their legal right and do not have the balls to risk going to court.

The second school of thought is that, by parking in the carpark you have given consent to be clamped should you break the advertised rules. If you remove the clamp without damaging it then you have committed no criminal offence and are free as a bird.

I personally follow the second theory for the most part. If I am parked illegally and am clamped by someone authorised by the owner to enforce advertised rules then it is only fair. On the other hand, if there is a genuine reason why I should not have been clamped and they refuse to release my car or even consider it then I would revert to the first theory.

zulfikarMD

+1 to ANXIOUS. I agree with ANXIOUS and with him. I have suffered twice without being at no fault and I know many other boards members have similar experiences. THIS IS PURE EXTORTION by NCPS. And should be stopped.

slimjimmc

zulfikarMD wrote: »

+1 to ANXIOUS. I agree with ANXIOUS and with him. I have suffered twice without being at no fault and I know many other boards members have similar experiences. THIS IS PURE EXTORTION by NCPS. And should be stopped.

Usually it's a management company or whoever owns the property, NCPS are only contracted by them to enforce their parking policy and therefore are operating as agents of the owners. They're employed to enforce this policy by using the threat of clamps and fines as a deterrent and their actual use as a 'penalty'. They may be over-zealous and worthy of disgust but NCPS can't just wander onto anyone's site and start clamping willy nilly. Perhaps ANXIOUS could focus some attention on that aspect too.

ANXIOUS

slimjimmc wrote: »

Perhaps ANXIOUS could focus some attention on that aspect too.

I think we should get a group of people from all over boards and look at all the issues.

zulfikarMD

slimjimmc wrote: »

Usually it's a management company or whoever owns the property, NCPS are only contracted by them to enforce their parking policy and therefore are operating as agents of the owners.

I am fully aware of this. but what if you are clamped on your own apartment block for parking a car at the same spot for 10 days while you are on vacation?

what about clamping someone's car where their parking ticket machines were not working during snow? and no notice on machine whom to call?

slimjimmc wrote: »

They may be over-zealous and worthy of disgust but NCPS can't just wander onto anyone's site and start clamping willy nilly. Perhaps ANXIOUS could focus some attention on that aspect too.

Do we have solicitor here on boards who can take this voluntarily in court? provide some insights on different clamping issues? Recover all hard earned money people who have genuinely lost?

darklighter

zulfikarMD wrote: »

I am fully aware of this. but what if you are clamped on your own apartment block for parking a car at the same spot for 10 days while you are on vacation?

what about clamping someone's car where their parking ticket machines were not working during snow? and no notice on machine whom to call?



Do we have solicitor here on boards who can take this voluntarily in court? provide some insights on different clamping issues? Recover all hard earned money people who have genuinely lost?

Your agreement with your management company or landlord should specify who is allowed to park in your spot. If it doesnt, get it in writing. Then you wont have any problems. If you dont know what will happen when on holidays and you get clamped, its your own fault IMO for not finding out.

In the OP's case and the one you have above about the snow, its pretty obvious NCPS are in the wrong. If you get no luck out of them, the old phonecall to Joe Duffy might do the trick.

As for the solicitor issue, if it was as clear as some people here are making out that clampers are in the wrong, i'm pretty sure a solicitor would have launched a crusade already. They tend not to miss an opportunity like that

Anan1

darklighter wrote: »

In the OP's case and the one you have above about the snow, its pretty obvious NCPS are in the wrong.

Is it? While we can all agree that the OP was in a terrible situation, there's no obligation on NCPS to waive the declamp fee because of it. I'm guessing from this extract from the OP's first post that they/their brother demanded not to be clamped, and then a free declamp, rather than asking for it:

firefly2327 wrote: »

Then they said that if he hadn’t had such an attitude, they may not have clamped me…… seriously.

Once NCPS felt that the clamp had been tampered with, any remaining goodwill was obviously lost. The situation now is that the Gardaí have the saw that NCPS say was used to damage the clamp. If the OP's brother admitted ownership of the saw, or if there's a likelihood that their fingerprints are on it, then i'd pay that fine ASAP and move on. It's a pity, as it sounds like a different attitude might have saved the OP €185. On the other hand, i'd happily break a few rules and pay the price if I felt my mother was in danger.

dougie-lampkin

firefly2327 wrote: »

I've contacted FLAC today and they basically said that the company were within their right to clamp my car and they advised paying the fee, or calling NCPS and negotiating. Paying the fee isn't an option, I can't afford it, so I called NCPS again. They are adamant that I must pay the 185 euro, non negotiable. I explained to them that the car would be on the premises permanently then, they said that's fine.........
Looks like my bicycle is going to get more use from now on. Having put on extra weight lately I'm looking at that as a positive I guess..

Tell NCPS if the clamp isn't removed they'll be hearing from your solicitor. If you want to go down the legal route, a solicitor's letter is a lot cheaper than €185. As a last resort, a strongly worded solicitor's letter will get them to remove it, they don't want this to go before the courts as they haven't a leg to stand on. Precedent has been set that clamping is illegal.

slimjimmc wrote: »

They did what now? Placing a clamp on a car does not make that clamp the property of the car owner/driver. That's like saying the OP's car became the property of the owner of the parking spot because the driver placed the car there.

As far as I'm concerned, if any unauthorised person leaves anything in/on my car in a public place, they don't want it any more, I have lawful custody of it. I personally have no use for a clamp, so I'll be destroying it. The law takes my side on this, as in the WIT clamping case:

The case originated when a clamp was removed from a car by its owner on January 5th last year. The judge ruled that the owner was entitled to remove something that was stuck to his car by whatever means and if it damages his car, he was entitled to claim damages.

slimjimmc wrote: »

The OP parked in the "resident's-only" car park, which suggests it was not a public place (reserved for residents and invited guests, not the public), however without full knowledge of the rules surrounding the use of the car-park, neither of us know for certain if it is a public place or not. If it's a public place then removing the clamp could be lawful, if private then removing it may not be lawful and the Garda was right to warn a suspect.

I fully agree with you that in a private place, you're at the mercy of the clampers. But the OP drove in unrestricted, making it a public place. That's the definition of a public place in the RTA, regardless of who owns the land or who it's intended for. An NCPS employee is not (yet :rolleyes:) a person authorised to clamp in a public place.

MugMugs

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

.....they don't want this to go before the courts as they haven't a leg to stand on. Precedent has been set that clamping is illegal.

Is there case law for this ? I didn't know there was !

Do you have a link to it ??

dougie-lampkin

MugMugs wrote: »

Is there case law for this ? I didn't know there was !

Do you have a link to it ??

Unfortunately it's from 2007, so the source is no longer online.

Judge ruled clamping illegal at WIT 18/1/2007

Judge William Harnett ruled at Waterford district court last week that WIT has no authority to clamp the Vehicles of people who park illegally at its cork road campus.

The case originated when a clamp was removed from a car by its owner on January 5th last year. The judge ruled that the owner was entitled to remove something that was stuck to his car by whatever means and if it damages his car, he was entitled to claim damages.

While there where notices up in the car park informing motorists that clamping was in operation, Judge Harnett ruled that there were no laws to support that notice before dismissing the case.

WITSU expects that WIT will seek legal clarification on this matter and that clamping will continue for now. WITSU welcomes the ruling that clamping is illegal, however does not encourage motorists to park in dangerous or unhelpful positions.

MugMugs

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

Unfortunately it's from 2007, so the source is no longer online.

I'll go digging.

If this is true then I'll make myself a wee copy to wave in the clampers face

Tabnabs

Vehicle clamping

Vehicle clamping is in place in the cities of Dublin, Cork and Galway. Services are operated in these cities by private companies on behalf of the local authority. Employees of the vehicle clamping company are entitled to clamp (and de-clamp vehicles) and issue clamping notices for vehicles that are in violation of the parking regulations. Clamping services are also common in car parks of hotels, hospitals, universities and shopping centres to discourage long-term parking at the expense of staff, customers or clients. Clamping on private property is not covered by legislation and the legality of clamping on private property is unclear.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/traffic_and_parking/parking_fines_and_vehicle_clamping.html

A very interesting and informed post here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60993432&postcount=5

darklighter

Thanks to Atlantic Dawn for posting this definition of a "public place" earlier in the thread (assuming this is the correct definition):

(iv) by the substitution for the definition of “public place” of the following definition:

“‘public place’ means—

(a) any public road, and

(b) any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;”;

My reading of this is that you have to have the "right" or "permission" to access to private land, not that you can drive into the particular place.

My apologies to the OP if this sounds callous, but in this case, they had neither. (I do think that NCPS shouldve shown some common sense but as we all know, common sense ain't that common unfortunately).

In the WIT case, the judge found in favour of the student as I would assume that a student has the right to be on campus.

Lots of posters are throwing out statements along the lines of 'they dont have a leg to stand on'. If it were this simple, there would be plenty of cases of clampers being taken to court.

dougie-lampkin

darklighter wrote: »

My reading of this is that you have to have the "right" or "permission" to access to private land, not that you can drive into the particular place.

My apologies to the OP if this sounds callous, but in this case, they had neither. (I do think that NCPS shouldve shown some common sense but as we all know, common sense ain't that common unfortunately).

If there's no barrier in use, you have permission to drive there. Just as anybody has permission to park in WIT, even to go for a stroll around the campus. If you can access it with your car, it's public. If they want it to be a private place, they must have some form of restricted entry, whether it be a code to open the gate, access cards or even a man at the gate checking ID.

That's not to say that the land owner can't ask you to leave however, it's still their land. But if it's public, the RTAs apply, meaning clamping is illegal.

darklighter wrote: »

Lots of posters are throwing out statements along the lines of 'they dont have a leg to stand on'. If it were this simple, there would be plenty of cases of clampers being taken to court.

The clampers will settle out of court before they'll go to court. The reason there are so few cases is because the clamping companies won't let it get that far. As you can see in the WIT case, they really don't have a leg to stand on.

darklighter

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

If there's no barrier in use, you have permission to drive there. Just as anybody has permission to park in WIT, even to go for a stroll around the campus. If you can access it with your car, it's public. If they want it to be a private place, they must have some form of restricted entry, whether it be a code to open the gate, access cards or even a man at the gate checking ID.

That's not to say that the land owner can't ask you to leave however, it's still their land. But if it's public, the RTAs apply, meaning clamping is illegal.



The clampers will settle out of court before they'll go to court. The reason there are so few cases is because the clamping companies won't let it get that far. As you can see in the WIT case, they really don't have a leg to stand on.

I highlighted the important bit above. You can drive into my driveway from a public road as there is no barrier stopping you. Do you actually believe that because I dont have a barrier up, that my land is not private property and you have my permission to be on my property????

dougie-lampkin

darklighter wrote: »

I highlighted the important bit above. You can drive into my driveway from a public road as there is no barrier stopping you. Do you actually believe that because I dont have a barrier up, that my land is not private property and you have my permission to be on my property????

No, but the RTAs still apply, making your driveway a public place (for the purposes of the RTAs) and clamping is illegal in your driveway too. Whether or not I have permission to be there is irrelevant, you can't illegally immobilise my car if I parked in your driveway.

(Although, the same section that rules clamping illegal allows you to do whatever you need to do to my car to move it out of your way, if I'm blocking your driveway)

darklighter

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

No, but the RTAs still apply, making your driveway a public place (for the purposes of the RTAs) and clamping is illegal in your driveway too. Whether or not I have permission to be there is irrelevant, you can't illegally immobilise my car if I parked in your driveway.

(Although, the same section that rules clamping illegal allows you to do whatever you need to do to my car to move it out of your way, if I'm blocking your driveway)

We'll have to agree to disagree on our definitions of "permission".

But for your own benefit, ask a solicitor for their professional opinion on what "permission" legally means

MugMugs

darklighter wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree on our definitions of "permission".

But for your own benefit, ask a solicitor for their professional opinion on what "permission" legally means

Sorry if this is off topic but doesnt this all fall under The Occupiers Liability Act ?

Phill Ewinn

Can the mods add this topic to a sticky? We seem to have the same discussion once a month on here. Illegal clamping companies must spend time trolling on forums like these.