Introduction of clamping in Charlesland Crescent and Wood

youknowwho

matt-dublin wrote: »

Because there's no real legal basis for a challenge until there is any legislation.

You don't need legislation for there to be challenges, and there have been plenty of challenges throughout the country, a local solicitor would have a better idea. But as the matters are minor they are only dealt with in the district court and small claims court so there is no case law. For a matter to make it to the circuit court the value of the case must exceed 6k.

As for legislation, there's plenty, it's property law. If you enter a property without a licence it's trespass. The owner can clamp a vehicle in order to create a lien on your property until you discharge a debt - they just have to clearly signpost the fact. Given the debate here I gather the signs are clear.

Alan_P

youknowwho wrote: »

You don't need legislation for there to be challenges, and there have been plenty of challenges throughout the country, a local solicitor would have a better idea. But as the matters are minor they are only dealt with in the district court and small claims court so there is no case law. For a matter to make it to the circuit court the value of the case must exceed 6k.

As for legislation, there's plenty, it's property law. If you enter a property without a licence it's trespass. The owner can clamp a vehicle in order to create a lien on your property until you discharge a debt - they just have to clearly signpost the fact. Given the debate here I gather the signs are clear.

There's also the legislation that makes it illegal to immobilise a vehicle in a public place. And Charlesland is a public place from the point of view of road traffic acts : - they say a public place is anywhere the public have access. People have been done for drink driving within the UCD Belfield campus.

This legal advice that was apparently obtained, did it fully discuss the data protection aspects, and why this isn't in breach of them ?

Did it fully explain why the Data Protection Commissioner wouldn't choose to make a test case of Charlesland ?

Did it point out that judges in this state, quite rightly, hate alternate justice systems, and will look for any reason to crucify those who start them ?

And as regards the concept that this is normal practice for management companies..I know of exactly 1 other case where this was started. It was a block of flats in Dundrum, all rented:- the residents clubbed together and bought an angle grinder, no clamping fees were ever paid, after the third time the clamp was destroyed, the clamping company withdrew from the contract.

matt-dublin

Alan_P wrote: »

There's also the legislation that makes it illegal to immobilise a vehicle in a public place. And Charlesland is a public place from the point of view of road traffic acts : - they say a public place is anywhere the public have access. People have been done for drink driving within the UCD Belfield campus.

This legal advice that was apparently obtained, did it fully discuss the data protection aspects, and why this isn't in breach of them ?

Did it fully explain why the Data Protection Commissioner wouldn't choose to make a test case of Charlesland ?

Did it point out that judges in this state, quite rightly, hate alternate justice systems, and will look for any reason to crucify those who start them ?

And as regards the concept that this is normal practice for management companies..I know of exactly 1 other case where this was started. It was a block of flats in Dundrum, all rented:- the residents clubbed together and bought an angle grinder, no clamping fees were ever paid, after the third time the clamp was destroyed, the clamping company withdrew from the contract.

Show me this legislation? I know of the road traffic act where its illegal to interfere with someone's car while it is stationary but this related to damage and theft not immobilisation.

I know of several apartment blocks in the city centre where it works successfully too

There is no data protection issues with clamping, you need to clarify your point here as it sounds like you're trying to make an argument without understanding what it is

Alan_P

matt-dublin wrote: »

Show me this legislation? I know of the road traffic act where its illegal to interfere with someone's car while it is stationary but this related to damage and theft not immobilisation.

I know of several apartment blocks in the city centre where it works successfully too

There is no data protection issues with clamping, you need to clarify your point here as it sounds like you're trying to make an argument without understanding what it is

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0113.html

Private clamping may well be generally illegal in this country :- there may be a test case brought at some point.

As regards data protection :- suppose the management companies decided they were going to paint red crosses on the doors of the houses that hadn't paid their management fees. They would have illegally disclosed to tenants personal information about their landlords, that they hadn't paid their fees. Is clamping the tenant's cars any less blatant a disclosure ? No, there hasn't been a case about this :- does Charlesland want to be that test case ?

matt-dublin

Alan_P wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0113.html

Private clamping may well be generally illegal in this country :- there may be a test case brought at some point.

As regards data protection :- suppose the management companies decided they were going to paint red crosses on the doors of the houses that hadn't paid their management fees. They would have illegally disclosed to tenants personal information about their landlords, that they hadn't paid their fees. Is clamping the tenant's cars any less blatant a disclosure ? No, there hasn't been a case about this :- does Charlesland want to be that test case ?

Do you know a ll your neighbours cars? I for one don't.

Alan_P

matt-dublin wrote: »

Do you know a ll your neighbours cars? I for one don't.

Yes I do actually. One is a 2006 Merc, one is an old Landrover.
I think you'll find most people do, at some level.

And really, it doesn't actually matter :- if these schemes get in front of an Irish judge, they will use any excuse to squash them.
Oh and when you say there's been legal advice :- is that written on headed notepaper, and start with "In my professional opinion" ?

Because if it's not it's worthless.

matt-dublin

Alan_P wrote: »

Yes I do actually. One is a 2006 Merc, one is an old Landrover.
I think you'll find most people do, at some level.

And really, it doesn't actually matter :- if these schemes get in front of an Irish judge, they will use any excuse to squash them.
Oh and when you say there's been legal advice :- is that written on headed notepaper, and start with "In my professional opinion" ?

Because if it's not it's worthless.

In house solicitor in KW as stated before

Stall The Ball 101

matt-dublin wrote: »

In house solicitor in KW as stated before

Well can you ask that in-house solicitor if the management company was to be sued how would that affect me as a shareholder....cause Im starting to get worried

Sulla Felix

There was quite a long thread on this matter over in accomadation and property. No private companies have had powers vested in them by by-law to allow them to clamp. The only "clampers" you're obliged to cooperate with are a city/town/council ones, like the ones you see on public roads in Dublin city centre.

So, invest in a bolt cutters. Don't damage the clamp itself, just the link holding the lock in place. They have no statutory right to put the clamp there, anymore than they'd have a right to sieze the vehicle, or change the locks to your door or anything else.

LEIN

Stall The Ball 101 wrote: »

Well can you ask that in-house solicitor if the management company was to be sued how would that affect me as a shareholder....cause Im starting to get worried

I would too. This is an Ill thought out plan that WILL crash and burn.

No third party will ever get away with interfering with my private property because "someone else" did not pay "their" bills.

I will take the management agent, clamping company and landlord for everything they have.

By the way, just had a read of my lease agreement and guess what?? I did not sign up for clamping!

Alan_P

matt-dublin wrote: »

In house solicitor in KW as stated before

Have you seen that opinion? Personally ? Has anyone ? Is it written ?

recedite

IMO it's a big mistake to mix the two issues; Unpaid management fees (service charges) for houses/ apartments is one issue. Trying to operate a private car park with a clamping regime is another.
There is a provision in law to recover unpaid management fees, but it does not include clamping someone's car. It involves taking them to court, and it would be the landlord going only, not the tenant;

Stall The Ball 101 wrote: »

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011 contains provisions which are intended to facilitate the fair, efficient and effective management of owners’ management companies....
Section 18 also provides that the owner of each residential unit is under an obligation to pay service charges levied under the Act. As regards the recovery of unpaid service charges, section 22 provides that unpaid service charges may be recovered by the owners’ management company concerned as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction, i.e normally the District Court.

Now, suppose a visitor to Charlesland (or anyone at all) gets clamped, what is the basis for this action. What are they being punished for exactly? What offence exactly? There is no legal "lien" against them, they are perfectly entitled to remove the clamp, and also sue for any damages to the car etc..
Even in the case of a private car park, such as the type where you take a ticket to enter, there is still no legal right to restrain or clamp people who don't pay the parking charge.
Clamping on private property is not covered by legislation and the legality of clamping on private property is unclear

One further point; I thought there were moves afoot to get the council to take over the street lighting and roads in Charlesland, and that was a reason why the playground had to be built; to get the place finished off prior to handover. If the council took over, they could legally introduce pay-parking and clamping. But they would be collecting all the revenues, not the management companies.

FirstIn

As it stands we (well those of us unfortunate enough to own our homes, read burdened with mortgages and considerable negative equity) have to pay mgmt fees.

Some of us pay, some can't pay and some don't bother.

I fall in to the first category, those that can't pay I believe can contact the mgmt company and enter into an arrangement.

It's the guys that can pay but don't that really p*sses me off. Why the f should I pay when these guys don't?

Bringing these guys to court is a no win, unless you're in the legal game.

So I for one hope that the introduction of clamping encourages these freeloaders to pay.

I don't understand why anyone that pays their mgmt fees would be against this move. A little inconvenient yes, but it's a small amount of pain for a greater gain.

And before anyone replies saying they're fully paid up and disagree with clamping please provide me with a good alternative to making the can pay but won't pay brigade pony up what they owe.

LEIN

FirstIn wrote: »

As it stands we (well those of us unfortunate enough to own our homes, read burdened with mortgages and considerable negative equity) have to pay mgmt fees.

Some of us pay, some can't pay and some don't bother.

I fall in to the first category, those that can't pay I believe can contact the mgmt company and enter into an arrangement.

It's the guys that can pay but don't that really p*sses me off. Why the f should I pay when these guys don't?

Bringing these guys to court is a no win, unless you're in the legal game.

I hope that the introduction of clamping encourages

I have no problem with fees being recovered and I hope for the sake of Charlesland that more pay up.

My problem is the clamping of innocent tenants who pay their rent in full each month (which ain't cheap) being clamped for a bill that has nothing to do with them in the first place.

FirstIn

DD9090 wrote: »

I have no problem with fees being recovered and I hope for the sake of Charlesland that more pay up.

My problem is the clamping of innocent tenants who pay their rent in full each month (which ain't cheap) being clamped for a bill that has nothing to do with them in the first place.

Sorry my post was submitted prematurely.

Yes I agree that is a problem for the tenant. But by withholding some rent I'd quickly make it a problem for the landlord!

Landlords have obligations, in Charlesland these include paying the mgmt fees. Tenants should ensure that their landlords have done so.

Maudi

FirstIn wrote: »

Sorry my post was submitted prematurely.

Yes I agree that is a problem for the tenant. But by withholding some rent I'd quickly make it a problem for the landlord!

Landlords have obligations, in Charlesland these include paying the mgmt fees. Tenants should ensure that their landlords have done so.

Jesus wept...here we go again..

Annasopra

I have been told that a lot of management companies go down this route because legal fees are very expensive and end up costing the management companies so much that it is hardly worth doing as a debt recovery measure.

recedite

mango salsa wrote: »

a lot of management companies go down this route because legal fees are very expensive

That doesn't matter, you can't just act outside the law because its cheaper. Not only that, but the clamping approach does not even target the supposed transgressors accurately.
For example, suppose you gave every property owner who had paid the fees a special badge to wear, and all the landlords then passed the badges to the tenants. And then you hired some thugs to beat up anyone seen walking around Charlesland without the badge. It would be cheap and effective, but illegal. Visitors and tenants of any non-paying landlords would become collateral damage.

.243

recedite wrote: »

Now, suppose a visitor to Charlesland (or anyone at all) gets clamped, what is the basis for this action. What are they being punished for exactly? What offence exactly? There is no legal "lien" against them, they are perfectly entitled to remove the clamp, and also sue for any damages to the car etc..
Even in the case of a private car park, such as the type where you take a ticket to enter, there is still no legal right to restrain or clamp people who don't pay the parking charge.

exactly my point eariler,but me removing the clamp myself was been "childish" :rolleyes:,
i dont live in charlesland (i see eyes been thrown to the ceiling as they read the first line) but i work the area regularly so my van will be targeted by clampers who think i live there the same way a visitor/delivery driver/doctor on call will be affected,
ill just treat the clamp like a flyer under my wiper,it just vanishes

FirstIn

I asked this question before , but I'll ask it again to all the anti clamping posters.

How would you go about collecting the unpaid mgmt fees?

Specifically that, not whether we should pay mgmt fees (there's another thread for that).

LEIN

FirstIn wrote: »

Sorry my post was submitted prematurely.

Yes I agree that is a problem for the tenant. But by withholding some rent I'd quickly make it a problem for the landlord!

Landlords have obligations, in Charlesland these include paying the mgmt fees. Tenants should ensure that their landlords have done so.

FirstIn wrote: »

I asked this question before , but I'll ask it again to all the anti clamping posters.

How would you go about collecting the unpaid mgmt fees?

Specifically that, not whether we should pay mgmt fees (there's another thread for that).

Both of these are not my problem nor will they ever be my problem, once my full rent is paid it becomes my landlord's problem. But there seems to be some sever difficulties around here understanding this for some reason.

FirstIn

DD9090 wrote: »

Both of these are not my problem nor will they ever be my problem, once my full rent is paid it becomes my landlord's problem. But there seems to be some sever difficulties around here understanding this for some reason.

It will certainly be your problem if you fail to display a permit and are clamped.

To me this comes down to;
Owner that have paid up welcoming this move.
Owners that have not bothered to pay against it.
Tenants that understand why it is necessary evil working with it.
Finally tenants saying "not my problem mate". (Even though they get the benefits from the monies paid by the first category for the upkeep etc of the estate they live in).

Does anyone know when is the clamping actually going to start?

LEIN

FirstIn wrote: »

It will certainly be your problem if you fail to display a permit and are clamped.

You seem to have missed some of my posts.

DD9090 wrote: »

No third party will ever get away with interfering with my private property because "someone else" did not pay "their" bills.

I will take the management agent, clamping company and landlord for everything they have.

By the way, just had a read of my lease agreement and guess what?? I did not sign up for clamping!

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

That doesn't matter

Of course it matters. If the management company is struggling financially because people are not paying their fees then the legal solution is not a solution at all really if the costs are so prohibitive. Taking legal action on unpaid fees is one solution but I don't believe it should be seen as the only solution. In fact it would probably end up with fee rises across the board.

banbam

The owner of the apartment has a legal obligation to pay management charges, just like the property tax. If they fail to pay the property tax, it will be deducted from their salary by revenue. If the fail to pay mgt charges it becomes a charge on the properety and eventually will be paid when the property is sold. In the meantime, the building, grounds, waste collection, etc must continue to be paid. The parking area/grass area are owned by the landlords/owners of the crescent and are therfore private property, to which the owners/landlords bear a legal responsibility. Tenents have rights in relation to their leases, but the landlord also has responsibilities to the tenant. This includes paying their mgtr charges. If anybody takes anybody to court it will be a tenant v landlord.

.243

FirstIn wrote: »

I asked this question before , but I'll ask it again to all the anti clamping posters.

How would you go about collecting the unpaid mgmt fees?

do what every other company/business does when they are owed money, start by going knocking on the doors of the people that owes them,"oh you rent this place,ok can i have the name of the owner and ill chase him up"
you dont see a milk round been stopped by the milkman in a whole estate just because one or two customers dont pay,

banbam

your correct, the milkman stops the service to the customer who does not pay. In this case, the parking service is stopped to the landlord and therefore the tenent by default. If the tenant leaves as is their right, for failure by the landlord to pay charges, they are within their rights, as the landlord has failed to pay their management charges. Likewise, if their was a fire in the apartment block, is it the tenent responsibility to pay building fire insurance or the landlord.

matt-dublin

@mango

You're right, the legal route is expensive but it also doesn't work.

We've been there, issues judgements and in one instance had the sheriff out to make a collection but not a penny has been retrieved.

The clamping however is havin an effect with people beginning to cough up.

In terms of start date? We are in week -1, apcoa are issuing warning stickers to cars in the crescent this week. As of next week they will be clamped if they haven't organised their pass.

Please note, cars parking on double yellow lines around the crescent will be clamped, as will cars parking in disabled spots with out valid permits and disability passes

FirstIn

"Quote: DD9090

No third party will ever get away with interfering with my private property because "someone else" did not pay "their" bills.

I will take the management agent, clamping company and landlord for everything they have"

--

And doing the above won't be a "problem" to you? Unless you're in the legal profession I'd suggest doing the above would be quite problematic.

Much easier to call your landlord and sort out your permits I reckon.

recedite

mango salsa wrote: »

Of course it matters. If the management company is struggling financially because people are not paying their fees then the legal solution is not a solution at all really if the costs are so prohibitive. Taking legal action on unpaid fees is one solution but I don't believe it should be seen as the only solution. In fact it would probably end up with fee rises across the board.

There is no easy solution, but equally you cannot go outside the law looking for a solution. Maybe the unpaid debts could be sold to a specialist debt collection agency, for a discount. Management Companies must already know the names and addresses of all the owners from the original contracts. Obviously the people who have already paid would take a hit, having to make up the difference of the discount. But then they are already paying an extra cost for Apcoa to install all the signage and the monitor the estate parking.

banbam wrote: »

your correct, the milkman stops the service to the customer who does not pay. In this case, the parking service is stopped to the landlord and therefore the tenent by default.

Not quite the same, because the service is actually maintainance of the grounds, public lighting, clearing rubbish etc and even if it was possible to withdraw this from one individual, it would reflect badly on the whole estate if one property became a kip.
Now suppose you had an owner occupier who had a bike or used the Dart instead of a car, is there no pressure on them to pay the fees?
My point is that the set of people defaulting on management fees is not the same as the set of people being threatened with clamping. That is the injustice of linking the two issues. Even if you judged in your own little private justice system that they were the same people, private clamping is not lawful.