Car Clamped in Driveway in Managed Estate

Jaysoose

As much as it pains me the OP is in the wrong here, management fees are to maintain communal areas etc so if he hasnt paid the Fee then he obviously loses the right to use these. Its a crappy situation but in fairness its a situation of his own making.

The thing people dont seem to realise or want to accept is that this type of communal living costs money to maintain, and if some tenants/owners dont pay then the cost falls on everybody else and the Fees themselves rise because of this.

No sympathy.

Paparazzo

The clampers will probably tell you that because you didn't pay management fees, your car is considered to be the same as some random strangers car.
Check the rules you signed up to. If your house comes with a parking space you have more rights. I doubt very much it says in the terms and conditions that they can clamp you if you don't pay.
Personally I'd get the angle grinder. Being held to ransom like that in your own home is crazy. Private clampers are the lowest of the low.

thebiglad

BrianD wrote: »

I don't think that APOCOA would have a leg to stand on if clamping is used to enforce payment of management fees. They also made a big mistake by stating that this is the reason.

If the clamps are removed on private property then there is a long arguement that it is a civil matter.

They will soon realise that this form of "enforcement and punishment" is unviable.

The clamp is not used to enforce management fees directly - what happens is that only 'residents' who have paid the management fees will be given a parking permit. Those vehicles without a parking permit whether resident or otherwise (APCOA have no way to tell and don't care) clamp all cars without a permit.

Clamping will have been agreed at an AGM and so effectively changes the contract terms. If you did not attend the AGM or were out-voted no good in complaining now.

BrianD

thebiglad wrote: »

The clamp is not used to enforce management fees directly - what happens is that only 'residents' who have paid the management fees will be given a parking permit. Those vehicles without a parking permit whether resident or otherwise (APCOA have no way to tell and don't care) clamp all cars without a permit.

Clamping will have been agreed at an AGM and so effectively changes the contract terms. If you did not attend the AGM or were out-voted no good in complaining now.

I would agree but the APOCOA spokesman said it was for not paying management fees (as opposed to not having a parking tag as a result of not paying management fees). It would therefore be reasonable to assume that the clamping actions are to do with credit control and not parking control.

I don't know what the state of affairs is at the particular development in question but I think it's safe to assume that there is always the possibility of a resident being in dispute with the management company or have a grievance. Therefore it would be unreasonable and unfair for the co. to effectively punish the resident while the dispute is being resolved?

gsxr1

Our management company is considering the same after a residents meeting.

Half of our estate has not paid the 500 euro a year fee. Yet they use the bins and have a clean maintained, street lit area to live in.

Proper order to clamp. Why should you get away with it while people like me have to pay to dump your rubbish.

Our management company had to let go of the secretary last month because of the free loaders.

Pay your fees by installment. You will have to pay them at some stage anyways. Its usually in the contract that before a home is sold , all the fees must be payed, including arrears.

Why is this in this forum?

Cookie_Monster

gsxr1 wrote: »

Our management company is considering the same after a residents meeting.

Half of our estate has not paid the 500 euro a year fee. Yet they use the bins and have a clean maintained, street lit area to live in.

Proper order to clamp. Why should you get away with it while people like me have to pay to dump your rubbish.

Our management company had to let go of the secretary last month because of the free loaders.

Pay your fees by installment. You will have to pay them at some stage anyways. Its usually in the contract that before a home is sold , all theeeee fees must be payed, including arrears.

Why is this in this forum?

Why has the estate not been handed over to the council though?

Management fees are just a moneymaking scheme for the most part Imo, unless it's an apartment block it should be handed over to the council. 500 per year is scandalous!

n97 mini

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why has the estate not been handed over to the council though?

Management fees are just a moneymaking scheme for the most part Imo, unless it's an apartment block it should be handed over to the council. 500 per year is scandalous!

Probably is an apartment block or a "gated community".

Clamping is not the way to enforce payment of management fees. If someone owes you money do you clamp their car or take them to court?

Ste.phen

n97 mini wrote: »

Probably is an apartment block or a "gated community".

Clamping is not the way to enforce payment of management fees. If someone owes you money do you clamp their car or take them to court?

Depends on whether or not they're parking on your property, it seems.
First the car, then court, seems less hassle for all concerned that way

bmaxi

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why has the estate not been handed over to the council though?

Probably because the Council won't take it. In my case, application was made to the local Council by the developer in 2007. Petty obstacle after petty obstacle has been raised, goalposts have been moved so often they are no longer even on the pitch.The simple fact is, the councils don't want to take over housing estates, the whole raison d'etre of Management Companies was to absolve the Local Authorities of the obligation to maintain housing estates. They have already told us that if and when they do take it over, they will not cut grass, sweep roads, etc. Just another reason to object to this household tax as far as I'm concerned, although I didn't need one.

Victor

seanmacc wrote: »

Surely, they can't do this in any circumstances.

What if you'd a wife in labour, a sick child or other emergency which required you to leave quickly in your car.

Call an ambulance.

bmaxi wrote: »

Don't know where you live but that's certainly not the case where I live.
The Management Company is run by the developer and a Board of 7 "Subscribers", basically cronies of the developer. In relation to any matter relating to the estate, fees, board members etc., each household has one vote while each subscriber has 30 votes. In an estate of 190 houses, I'll leave you to do the maths.

Then get legal advice and use the Multi-Unit Developments Act or claim oppression under the Companies Acts.

bmaxi

Victor wrote: »

Call an ambulance.

Very clever. I love it when inhabitants of the Metropolis make off the cuff remarks like that. Try that when you live in a rural area, you'd have a better chance of being teleported via the Enterprise, and I don't mean the train.

Victor

bmaxi wrote: »

Very clever. I love it when inhabitants of the Metropolis make off the cuff remarks like that. Try that when you live in a rural area, you'd have a better chance of being teleported via the Enterprise, and I don't mean the train.

This would appear to be at odds with the OP living in what appears to be a managed development.

bmaxi

Victor wrote: »

This would appear to be at odds with the OP living in what appears to be a managed development.

Why? Do you think managed developments are unique to Dublin?

Lantus

If you own a house which is implied and the driveway is your own private property then I would argue that clamping is not a legal route to take in this instance (this is not leagl advice.)

The situation is different in say an apartment where there is a car park used by all the residents. These are classed as common areas and run and technically owned by the OMC. clamping and parking permits are common to ensure payment.

however, if the driveway is part of your house then I would argue they have no more right to clamp your car then say change your locks to your house when you are away.

You dont say how many 'reminders' you got asking you to pay or if you were warned about getting clamped in writing prior to this taking place.

I would have no wories about removing the clamp photo or no photo. The payment is to remove it and if it's not on any more there is no need to pay. pick the lock if possible (these locks are among the easier to pick.) or cut if off taking all precaustions as others have stated.

However, you should think about talking with your OMC about making payment and any back payment. Get more involved in the OMC, is it run by the developer or the residents?

Taking in charge covers you for as a minimum the sewers, the roads and the street lighting. Some areas may do more but dont expect it. Even in an estate made up of just houses there will be grass cutting and landscaping, public liability insurance, probably some walls and other areas that will need to be looked after and a requirement for a sinking fund (by law.) landscaping is often the biggest. We have around 10 acres in an estate of just 200 houses and some apartments. we do it ourselves....great fun....

And yes, coco's are digging there heels in with taking in charge. the system is flawed and no one is in any hurry to change it.

odds_on

IMHO, this thread should be in Legal Discussions where decent advice is more likely to be offered - not "get an angle grinder" or "use a bolt cutters".

ProudDUB

sidders wrote: »

i am going to fight this tooth and nail as i feel morrally raped.
i shouldnt have to worry about things like this when to my knowledge all my payments have been ontime via direct debit especially as it was on my private property

According to the OP, the mgt fees HAVE been paid.

OP, have you contacted your bank to see if the direct debits are still taking place? Check your bank statements. Have you checked with the mgt company to see if they have received the payments? If the payments have been made, the mgt company should reimburse you for the clamping fee. They should also assist you with finding out why the clampers targeted you and your car in the first place. It could happen again if you don't.

Could it be possible that the direct debits were canceled or never took place as they should? Just one missed payment can be all it takes to cancel it. If that is the case, and the mgt companies policy is to clamp non payers, then you are probably $hit out of luck. It is your responsibility to make sure they get paid, not theirs. Although it does seem kinda rude for them not to send you a letter at the very least, notifying you that there is a problem before they send in the clamping cavalry.

overshoot

bmaxi wrote: »

Very clever. I love it when inhabitants of the Metropolis make off the cuff remarks like that. Try that when you live in a rural area, you'd have a better chance of being teleported via the Enterprise, and I don't mean the train.

Victor wrote: »

This would appear to be at odds with the OP living in what appears to be a managed development.

sorry but have you seen where some estates have gone up? a village would be an overstatement, the odds of a local ambulence service zero especially considering a lot of towns share ambulence services. the op did not officially state his location but he has lexlip in his info, so if accurate it may have a decent response time, but as the general rule with health being minutes count, him having access to a car may still cost these mintues. either way its not really relevant, the issue is should he have access to the car or not.

odds_on wrote: »

IMHO, this thread should be in Legal Discussions where decent advice is more likely to be offered - not "get an angle grinder" or "use a bolt cutters".

+1 on this the man needs proper legal advice, but i cant see how they could clamp him on non communal land.
id be keeping the receipt of every bus, taxi etc you have had to take as a result of not having access to the car and looking for it too if they (as id expect) dont have a leg to stand on, fees or not. (if you have paid, double check) look for official written reason from all concerned, clamping company included.

gsxr1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why has the estate not been handed over to the council though?

Management fees are just a moneymaking scheme for the most part Imo, unless it's an apartment block it should be handed over to the council. 500 per year is scandalous!

500 a year is quite good. We have big dumpsters that can take as much rubbish as we can throw at it . Landscape gardeners keep the flowers and trees perfect and sweep the street, plus the street lighting running and maintenance.

Its a good deal. How much does a years worth of bin tags cost.

The council will not take over my street. Underground carpark and an apartment block.

mathepac

I agree the thread needs to be moved as quite a few posters are confused between a "management company" and a "managing agent" and some don't seem to realise that a privately managed estates / MUD will never be taken in charge by a local authority.

If OP is a property owner in the estate (as seems to be the case by one of his posts mentioning payment of management fees) then his is a member of the management company so suing the management company is akin to suing himself.

The managing agent on the other hand is under the direct control and supervision of the management company (as a paid agent) and their performance, and anyone they appoint to carry out specific work. needs to be subject review at regular (quarterly ?) intervals as well as at the mandatory AGM. OP, do you attend AGMs and participate in the election of management company directors, budget reviews, appointment of managing agent and policy setting?

It's gone way beyond time that lease-holders / property owner in MUD get up to speed on this stuff to avoid confusion and conflict, as well as the proliferation of pointless posts on the subject.

amdublin

Op - have you paid your mgmt fees?
If yes then it seems to be a (major) mistake on their part.

If you have not paid your mgmt fees then IMO you should pay your fees in order to use the facilities without being clamped.

BostonB

I would doubt that the payment of management fee's has any connection to parking in your own drive.

athtrasna

BostonB wrote: »

I would doubt that the payment of management fee's has any connection to parking in your own drive.

It would depend on the border of the property surely?

Where clamping is introduced in a development as a way of convincing people to pay management fees it is usually as a last resort. Unpaid fees are crippling a lot of developments, I know cases where refuse collection has been stopped and insurance hasn't been paid due to the extent of unpaid fees. Luckily not our development. We do have clamping but only in the case of parking in areas that are not parking spaces eg gable ends, on footpaths etc.

BostonB

If the border matters then its not your own drive.

Lantus

mathepac wrote: »

I agree the thread needs to be moved as quite a few posters are confused between a "management company" and a "managing agent" and some don't seem to realise that a privately managed estates / MUD will never be taken in charge by a local authority.

Being taken in charge is viable for an estate that is managed privately. The coco takes in charge the roads, the street lighting and the all important sewers which is the biggest cost if anything were to go wrong. This may not be the case on say an apartment block with a gated entrance or a single private street also gated.

So there are many estates that will be run by an OMC and WILL be taken in charge. This does not negate the requirement for the OMC however as some people seem to think.

mathepac wrote: »

If OP is a property owner in the estate (as seems to be the case by one of his posts mentioning payment of management fees) then his is a member of the management company so suing the management company is akin to suing himself.

The managing agent on the other hand is under the direct control and supervision of the management company (as a paid agent) and their performance, and anyone they appoint to carry out specific work. needs to be subject review at regular (quarterly ?) intervals as well as at the mandatory AGM. OP, do you attend AGMs and participate in the election of management company directors, budget reviews, appointment of managing agent and policy setting?

The management agent is a private entity appointed by the directors of the OMC. While the OMC is required by law to produce accounts and other documents a managing agent is not. Thre is no contractural relationship between the shareholders of the OMC and a managing agent. They are a third party like a window cleaner.

Their performace SHOULD be carefully monitored and all accounts and financial records provided in short periods for review by the directors. If they are not forthcoming then they can be released earyl before problems occur like a year of accounts 'missing' becasue the agent realised they could fleece the directors and shred the evidence. The only way to get them to provide any financial info is via the high court. A really cheap method. Not. This is from experience.

mathepac wrote: »

It's gone way beyond time that lease-holders / property owner in MUD get up to speed on this stuff to avoid confusion and conflict, as well as the proliferation of pointless posts on the subject.

Given your post contains several innacurate points I totally agree with you that there should be more clarity on this matter.

mathepac

Lantus wrote: »

Being taken in charge is viable for an estate that is managed privately. The coco takes in charge the roads, the street lighting and the all important sewers which is the biggest cost if anything were to go wrong. This may not be the case on say an apartment block with a gated entrance or a single private street also gated. ...

Which still leaves the grassed areas, play areas, shrubs, waste collection, parking spaces, footpaths, walkways and the piping to from foul water drains and sewers and freshwater inlets, parking enforcement and so on to the management company and / or their appointed agent.

Lantus wrote: »

... So there are many estates that will be run by an OMC and WILL be taken (partially / selectively) in charge. This does not negate the requirement for the OMC however as some people seem to think. ...

Lantus wrote: »

... The management agent is a private entity appointed by the directors of the OMC. While the OMC is required by law to produce accounts and other documents a managing agent is not. Thre is no contractural relationship between the shareholders of the OMC and a managing agent....

I don't remember saying anything different.

Lantus wrote: »

... Their performace SHOULD be carefully monitored and all accounts and financial records provided in short periods for review by the directors. ...

These are "merely" contractual matters between the management company and the agent; frequency of reporting, level of detail, consequences of non-performance, etc

Lantus wrote: »

... If they are not forthcoming then they can be released earyl before problems occur like a year of accounts 'missing' becasue the agent realised they could fleece the directors and shred the evidence. The only way to get them to provide any financial info is via the high court. A really cheap method. Not. This is from experience. ...

And these are some of the consequences of failing to have appropriate controls built into the contract with the agent.

Lantus wrote: »

... Given your post contains several innacurate points I totally agree with you that there should be more clarity on this matter.

I don't see many; omissions but not inaccuracies.

BostonB

What has any of that got to do with the legality of being clamped in your own drive.

Ste.phen

BostonB wrote: »

What has any of that got to do with the legality of being clamped in your own drive.

The thread has deviated slightly from that, it started to split when the issue of whether or not it was actually 'their' drive came up

BostonB

Its not deviated, its on a whole new forum at this point.

tara73

I just can't get it people justifying the clamping.

what's that for an understanding of a civilised society?

so next time somebody steals for example my lawnmower I can decide for my revenge, steal for example his car? and then he kidnaps my children.
welcome to big wild west cowboy land or what??

if somebody doesn't pay the fees, the company in charge has to send out a demand note for the outstanding fees.
if the debtor is still not paying, often a credit consultant company is involved and if there's still no payment it has to go the legal route/the debtor has to be brought to court.
Or did I miss something??

listermint

tara73 wrote: »

I just can't get it people justifying the clamping.

what's that for an understanding of a civilised society?

so next time somebody steals for example my lawnmower I can decide for my revenge, steal for example his car? and then he kidnaps my children.
welcome to big wild west cowboy land or what??

if somebody doesn't pay the fees, the company in charge has to send out a demand note for the outstanding fees.
if the debtor is still not paying, often a credit consultant company is involved and if there's still no payment it has to go the legal route/the debtor has to be brought to court.
Or did I miss something??

Most of the posters that ever justify clamping are the usual suspects, its a long running theme on these boards. They tend to be on the management commities / work for the clamping firms / have a council job / nosey parkers and generally have a good oul time of seeing others vehicles getting clamped with a smug satisfaction.


It will never change we stand on either side of the fence throwing rights and wrongs back at each other but essentially we are fundamentally opposed. That is to say until a shiney yellow boot is found on their car