clamped while on mercy mission

-Chris-

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

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.

If there was a definitive answer, there'd be no issue stickying it or making an FAQ for it, but as it is there's a lot of supposition but noone with the grapes to actually challenge it in court.
As such, I wouldn't be happy to give legal advice in the forum as to whether it's ok to (potentially) criminally damage a clamp.

Sully

mikemac wrote: »

Yes, there has

WIT continue to clamp and I was always of the understanding that the appropriate bye-laws were put in place to allow clamping to continue.

MugMugs

Sully wrote: »

WIT continue to clamp and I was always of the understanding that the appropriate bye-laws were put in place to allow clamping to continue.

Would a Bye Law for WIT not be National ?

Sully

MugMugs wrote: »

Would a Bye Law for WIT not be National ?

bye-laws are not national..

firefly2327

RustyNut wrote: »

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.

I would be happy to employ a locksmith, but I'd imagine that none would touch it for fear of being prosecuted for criminal damage.!

firefly2327

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????

Good point. I don't want to cloud the issue further, but when visiting my mother or dropping her off at her apartment she usually tells me to park in the carpark and come in. On visits I get there walking usually so parking isn't an issue (for some reason she always assumes I've driven) and if I do have a car with me I don't stay, so basically the parking issue hasn't arisen before, or I'd have been more aware. However, she did give me permission on numerous occassions to park in the carpark.
This is besides the issue however, I was there due to an emergency.

What if I had been clamped while parked on double yellows, the only other alternative under the circumstances? From my perspective the situation was an emergency and I was not obstructing the entry or exit of any other persons or vehicles and I did no damage to or cause distress to anyone. The only injured party in all this is me.

I am seeking a solicitor at present to help clarify the situation.

MagicSean

firefly2327 wrote: »

I would be happy to employ a locksmith, but I'd imagine that none would touch it for fear of being prosecuted for criminal damage.!

Only if they damage it.

Anan1

firefly2327 wrote: »

This is besides the issue however, I was there due to an emergency.

What if I had been clamped while parked on double yellows, the only other alternative under the circumstances? From my perspective the situation was an emergency and I was not obstructing the entry or exit of any other persons or vehicles and I did no damage to or cause distress to anyone. The only injured party in all this is me.

I am seeking a solicitor at present to help clarify the situation.

No-one doubts that it was an emergency, and i'm sure we'd all have parked there too. But - and I don't mean this to sound insensitive - how does this entitle you to anything more than goodwill from NCPS?

Marcusm

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)

Rubbish; a driveway in these circumstances is not a public place. The "public" meaning people in general have neither right nor permission to drive on it. This is also why a car in your driveway requires neither motor tax nor insurance.

To take your view to an absurd conclusion, why could someone not come and pitch their tent in your front garden! No permission = trespassing.

Atlantic Dawn

Am I correct in saying that if I was to put up a sign in my apartment block saying non keyholders will be handcuffed and I then proceeded to handcuff non keyholders people who walked around the car park that it would be the very same as clamping a car. Both have no licence to operate in this country, both result in the detainee having to pay an unregulated amount of money to be released, both are illegal acts as defined by the Irish Statute Book in that they are hampering the movement of the person or car and both could involve "criminal damage" if they were to be removed .

Wexfordian

Marcusm wrote: »

To take your view to an absurd conclusion, why could someone not come and pitch their tent in your front garden! No permission = trespassing.

But if you showed up and pitched a tent in my garden without my permission and then injured yourself on my property I could still be liable. Permission only means so much. If I can presume to talk for Dougie his point is that the RTAs still apply regardless of permission, though I'm not sure how this tracks with the requirements (or otherwise) for car tax on your own land.

RustyNut

Marcusm wrote: »

Rubbish; a driveway in these circumstances is not a public place. The "public" meaning people in general have neither right nor permission to drive on it. This is also why a car in your driveway requires neither motor tax nor insurance.

To take your view to an absurd conclusion, why could someone not come and pitch their tent in your front garden! No permission = trespassing.

If you are sitting in your car drunk with the keys in the ignition you would be liable to arrest for drunk in charge.

Anan1

RustyNut wrote: »

If you are sitting in your car drunk with the keys in the ignition you would be liable to arrest for drunk in charge.

Not in your own driveway. AFAIK it's not illegal to drive drunk on your own private land.

dougie-lampkin

Marcusm wrote: »

Rubbish; a driveway in these circumstances is not a public place. The "public" meaning people in general have neither right nor permission to drive on it. This is also why a car in your driveway requires neither motor tax nor insurance.

To take your view to an absurd conclusion, why could someone not come and pitch their tent in your front garden! No permission = trespassing.

Because tent pitching isn't an offence under the road traffic acts?

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Am I correct in saying that if I was to put up a sign in my apartment block saying non keyholders will be handcuffed and I then proceeded to handcuff non keyholders people who walked around the car park that it would be the very same as clamping a car. Both have no licence to operate in this country, both result in the detainee having to pay an unregulated amount of money to be released, both are illegal acts as defined by the Irish Statute Book in that they are hampering the movement of the person or car and both could involve "criminal damage" if they were to be removed .

Essentially, yes :pac:

dougie-lampkin

Anan1 wrote: »

Not in your own driveway. AFAIK it's not illegal to drive drunk on your own private land.

People have been prosecuted under the RTA on private land, yet a public place. I know of one instance of a young lad getting 2 points and a fine for texting while stopped in a drive through queue. Now, if you were the landowner and you ensured that the land was not open to the public, the RTAs no longer apply

RustyNut

Anan1 wrote: »

Not in your own driveway. AFAIK it's not illegal to drive drunk on your own private land.

But if the public have access it becomes a public place for the purpose of the road traffic act. A gate being open or closed might make a difference, but where the OP was clamped is for sure.


“public place” means 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;

dollyk

my car was clamped at mcdonalds in drogheda, went to get cash, had a burger, was told by the clamper, i was over an hour gone ? must have been chatting and queing longer than i thought.
had to pay 90 fecking euro....
some happy meal that turned out to be..:(

MagicSean

RustyNut wrote: »

But if the public have access it becomes a public place for the purpose of the road traffic act. A gate being open or closed might make a difference, but where the OP was clamped is for sure.


“public place” means 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;

They have to have a right of access. Private property is not public just because it has no gate.

Anan1

RustyNut wrote: »

But if the public have access it becomes a public place for the purpose of the road traffic act. A gate being open or closed might make a difference, but where the OP was clamped is for sure.


“public place” means 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;

If a car park is signopsted as 'private, residents only' then surely the public don't have access either as of right or by permission? I would have said that the same holds true for a driveway, either gated or not? On the other hand, i'd say the public do have access by permission to, say, a privately owned public car park with disc parking?

Marcusm

Wexfordian wrote: »

But if you showed up and pitched a tent in my garden without my permission and then injured yourself on my property I could still be liable. Permission only means so much. If I can presume to talk for Dougie his point is that the RTAs still apply regardless of permission, though I'm not sure how this tracks with the requirements (or otherwise) for car tax on your own land.

Because "public place" is the requirement for both motor tax and clamping restrictions. Not every piece of land needs an electric gate and guard dogs to mean that the public doesn't have permission to use it. Their is no presumption of permission and historically courts have required that the prosecutorial authorities demonstrate an ability and a regular occurrence of the public (ie anyone who wants) using the property for it to satisfy the conditions.

Personally I think clamping is an abomination both on private and public land as it rarely satisfies anyone. That said boardsies should look at the Accom & Prop sub forum to see the effect which unfettered parking has on some peoples lives. My view us that clamping should only be used as a last resort and only on proven nuisance (someone parking in an allocated spot and the owner making a complaint and requesting clamping). In that event there would be much fewer instances of clamping but probably need to make utca much bigger fee to be economical.

The OP was hard done by but every time I've parked inappropriately, I've worried too. Very little you can do once the yellow shoe is on except pay up or cut off.

RustyNut

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

They have to have a right of access. Private property is not public just because it has no gate.

These are the things that keep barristers in nice beemers, but the post man,the milk man, guy looking for directions would have access, I'm open to correction not my field really . Where would you stand drunk on your own driveway?

Marcusm

Anan1 wrote: »

If a car park is signopsted as 'private, residents only' then surely the public don't have access either as of right or by permission? I would have said that the same holds true for a driveway, either gated or not? On the other hand, i'd say the public do have access by permission to, say, a privately owned public car park with disc parking?

I would agree with this with only one restriction. If in the case of the private car park, no action was taken against non residents (such as note under windwipers, not needing to go so extreme as clamping), there might be a possibility that it could be shown to become public. This has been considered in some UK cases on the subject.

Anan1

RustyNut wrote: »

These are the things that keep barristers in nice beemers, but the post man,the milk man, guy looking for directions would have access, I'm open to correction not my field really . Where would you stand drunk on your own driveway?

My guess is that the postman etc has permission because they reasonably assume the owner to have granted them permission to enter for a specific purpose. For example, the postman can come up the driveway to put post in the letterbox but if they walk through an open side entrance and into the back garden then they're trespassing.

Anan1

Marcusm wrote: »

I would agree with this with only one restriction. If in the case of the private car park, no action was taken against non residents (such as note under windwipers, not needing to go so extreme as clamping), there might be a possibility that it could be shown to become public. This has been considered in some UK cases on the subject.

I'd say you might be right there. AFAIK this is how the situation in Lissadell House, for example, came to be. However, my guess is that it would be impossible to argue that a car park clearly signposted as 'private property - residents only - clamping in operation' was a public place.;)

Marcusm

RustyNut wrote: »

These are the things that keep barristers in nice beemers, but the post man,the milk man, guy looking for directions would have access, I'm open to correction not my field really . Where would you stand drunk on your own driveway?

The post man has implied permission because you have put a letter box in your door and not on a pist at the end of your drive.

The milkman has express permission as you have entered into a contract with him to deliver milk to your door.

The guy looking for directions has no permission but an expectation that you welcome visitors as you haven't put up a sign go the contrary. He must depart immediately on your instruction.

RustyNut

Marcusm wrote: »

The post man has implied permission because you have put a letter box in your door and not on a pist at the end of your drive.

The milkman has express permission as you have entered into a contract with him to deliver milk to your door.

The guy looking for directions has no permission but an expectation that you welcome visitors as you haven't put up a sign go the contrary. He must depart immediately on your instruction.

I stand corrected,:o

markc1184

dollyk wrote: »

my car was clamped at mcdonalds in drogheda, went to get cash, had a burger, was told by the clamper, i was over an hour gone ? must have been chatting and queing longer than i thought.
had to pay 90 fecking euro....
some happy meal that turned out to be..:(

You were worse yourself to pay it. The sign says it is for customers use only, which you were. Why not just show your receipt?

Anan1

I'd never have expected this thread to have taken such an abrubt turn towards the rational.:D

dollyk

markc1184 wrote: »

You were worse yourself to pay it. The sign says it is for customers use only, which you were. Why not just show your receipt?

I did , he was not interested, and the guy in mcdonalds gave me the no responsibility act, had to get kids from school, so didnt have much choice..:(

zenno

at the moment i am doing a home course on lock picking and I have to say it is quite easy to pick these locks instead of going through the trouble of taking the wheel off. i'd suggest lock picking as the better option as it only takes around 15 seconds to 1 minute to pick it and there is obviously no damage to the clamp or lock.

this one is an overview of the tools you can make or buy. I will be working on different locks in a few days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=238rg_hFlgM