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

Introduction of clamping in Charlesland Crescent and Wood

Options
1…6791112…22

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Robertr
    Registered Users Posts: 729 ✭✭✭Robertr


    Does not impact me as I'm in the Grove (and am fully paid up) but how is it legal to clamp someone for not paying their management fees? You might as well change the locks on their house? How does one relate to the other?


  • Options
    #243
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    Robertr wrote: »
    Does not impact me as I'm in the Grove (and am fully paid up) but how is it legal to clamp someone for not paying their management fees? You might as well change the locks on their house? How does one relate to the other?

    If you don't pay for the facilities that you subscribe to you should not be allowed acces to them.

    Bins/parking/gardens/common areas.

    If you don't pay your sky/gas/esb you get cut.

    To note, I believe the access locks have been changed to seaborne view where owners haven't paid fees


  • Options
    #244
    Robertr
    Registered Users Posts: 729 ✭✭✭Robertr


    Was parking listed as something that you are paying for in your management fee? Don't think so.

    Its nothing like Sky/Gas/ESB. You sign contracts for those that specifically say if you do not pay you will be cut off. Not aware of any such terms in anything you sign when buying the property?

    Doubt very much that you could get it through the courts if anyone bothered to challange it.

    I wouldn't support it in the Grove even though it wouldn't impact me. As much as I'd like people to pay their management fees we can't just make up punishments.


  • Options
    #245
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    Robertr wrote: »
    Was parking listed as something that you are paying for in your management fee? Don't think so.

    Its nothing like Sky/Gas/ESB. You sign contracts for those that specifically say if you do not pay you will be cut off. Not aware of any such terms in anything you sign when buying the property?

    Doubt very much that you could get it through the courts if anyone bothered to challange it.

    I wouldn't support it in the Grove even though it wouldn't impact me. As much as I'd like people to pay their management fees we can't just make up punishments.

    don't bother to explain this to certain types of people. they just do not care until they really feel the hit in own pocket (so far they don't so they play their games, so just ignore their game rules) - if they try to abuse you, then go to court... for that reason clamping is in grey area and will be for long as in the rest part of EUrope.

    Angle grinder...

    Remember if they clamp yours car and damage anything during this process (scratch, damage brake hose, or since people in Greystones live far from Specialist Hospitals, you can easily take them up for easy win in court). Their game... but they don't know the rules.

    Yes, you are correct that you don't need to agree as your original contract stands.

    Some of them are like little kids, dreaming of becoming policeman or soldier, now since they failed and got bored with their lives, they try to police others...

    E.g.
    ''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 were 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.

    Current Law:

    Road Traffic Act, 1961


    Unauthorised interference with mechanism of vehicle.

    113.—(1) A person shall not, without lawful authority or reasonable cause, interfere or attempt to interfere with the mechanism of a mechanically propelled vehicle while it is stationary in a public place, or get on or into or attempt to get on or into the vehicle while it is so stationary.     link: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0113.html


  • Options
    #246
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    @robertr actually you did sign up to a contract when you bought. Most of the properties in charlesland are leaseholds with entitlements. Entitlements which must be funded and maintained by fees. If you don't pay them you lose access to the common areas, parking and bins.

    @tp25 the wit case was a bit more complex than that where wit were clamping cars on a public road which they did not own. It happened to pass through the campus. This is why it was ruled illegal. You will also find with the clamping legislation coming in that clamping on private property will continue, will be regulated and also will protect both clampers and public. Meaning when people cut a clamp when the legislation is set there will be liabilities for the person committing the actions

    The road traffic act does not apply here. That specific point is in relation to theft and not immobilisation


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    2011 wrote: »
    Really? If that is the case can you post a link to this?

    your link posted for the Current Law


  • Options
    #248
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    You're a bit 100% wrong here...

    It will be regulated not banned,

    Banning it would result in job loses, not what the government need right now...

    You are 100% wrong here.


  • Options
    #249
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    tp25 wrote: »
    You are 100% wrong here.

    No I'm not.


  • Options
    #250
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    @robertr actually you did sign up to a contract when you bought. Most of the properties in charlesland are leaseholds with entitlements. Entitlements which must be funded and maintained by fees. If you don't pay them you lose access to the common areas, parking and bins.

    No matt-dublin, your statement is not fully correct.
    Some of the properties in Charlesland are leasehold an some of them are freehold.

    I think that most are freehold. Interesting if someone more knowledgeable could post link how many apt's and how many houses are in CL.


  • Options
    #251
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    No I'm not.

    Yes you are, and you becoming acting like arguing child.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    tp25 wrote: »
    No matt-dublin, your statement is not fully correct.
    Some of the properties in Charlesland are leasehold an some of them are freehold.

    I think that most are freehold. Interesting if someone more knowledgeable could post link how many apt's and how many houses are in CL.
    I think there's 420 houses and 1100 apartments including duplexes/seaborne/crescent


  • Options
    #253
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    matt-dublin wrote: »

    @tp25 the wit case was a bit more complex than that where wit were clamping cars on a public road which they did not own. It happened to pass through the campus. This is why it was ruled illegal. You will also find with the clamping legislation coming in that clamping on private property will continue, will be regulated and also will protect both clampers and public. Meaning when people cut a clamp when the legislation is set there will be liabilities for the person committing the actions

    The road traffic act does not apply here. That specific point is in relation to theft and not immobilisation

    Maybe learn and become judge before you start making assumptions, and you are not a wizard to know what will be ruled in new Law.

    For now immobilising vehicles is Illegal (It may be harder to prove where the county council does it, but NCPS and anything like that have no stand in courts).


  • Options
    #254
    LEIN
    Registered Users Posts: 9,936 ✭✭✭LEIN


    Okay, lads keep it civil.


  • Options
    #255
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    I think there's 420 houses and 1100 apartments including duplexes/seaborne/crescent

    Then if people in apartments agree you can police them.

    Stay away from roads where freehold properties are located.

    And for those who live in apartments, whoever is going to try to police us, they do need our signature (or the Law has to change) to agree to ''play in your game, rules'' before we/they can start to play in these clamping games.


  • Options
    #256
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    DD9090 wrote: »
    Okay, lads keep it civil.


    I agree. Let's keep civil and Informed discussion based on current Law. Not on personal opinions.


  • Options
    #257
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    tp25 wrote: »
    Maybe learn and become judge before you start making assumptions, and you are not a wizard to know what will be ruled in new Law.

    For now immobilising vehicles is Illegal (It may be harder to prove where the county council does it, but NCPS and anything like that have no stand in courts).

    Can you show me any law that says immobilisation of a mechanically propelled vehicle by a third party is illegal!

    Can you also show me any documentation on the upcoming legislation that will ban clamping on private property?

    Banning clamping on private property would likely put hundreds of jobs on the line. I don't expect this to happen. I also don't expect the government to allow anyone to park wherever they want without permission.

    Also although your house many be freehold it requires access to common areas of which you have to subscribe to again would have been in your contract of purchase. This means that the board of directors in your management company which effectively own the land and are your neighbours can being in clamping on the roads if they so choose.


  • Options
    #258
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    Can you show me any law that says immobilisation of a mechanically propelled vehicle by a third party is illegal!

    Can you also show me any documentation on the upcoming legislation that will ban clamping on private property?

    Banning clamping on private property would likely put hundreds of jobs on the line. I don't expect this to happen. I also don't expect the government to allow anyone to park wherever they want without permission.

    Also although your house many be freehold it requires access to common areas of which you have to subscribe to again would have been in your contract of purchase. This means that the board of directors in your management company which effectively own the land and are your neighbours can being in clamping on the roads if they so choose.

    I won't show to you anything, simply if you clamp me I will cut it off with angle grinder, if you scratch my vehicle or make it impossible for me to attend the treatment I will sue you.

    And I will win. You will learn from judge as to why. Don't involve jobs here as there are many potholes to be fixed (do you see link yet)?

    Don't try to speak me, you have no stand.


  • Options
    #259
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    tp25 wrote: »
    I won't show to you anything, simply if you clamp me I will cut it off with angle grinder, if you scratch my vehicle or make it impossible for me to attend the treatment I will sue you.

    And I will win.
    You won't sue me because I'm not looking after your estate.

    But you have now publicly shown intent to do damage to a companies property regardless if whether you're in the wrong or not. Realistically not going to suit you favourably in court.

    Also you're trying to use a law that doesn't suit purpose and clutching at a legislation that won't benefit just the public but will protect both sides.

    Any decent defence lawyer will make mince meat if the case and you would be liable for charges left right and centre.


  • Options
    #260
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    You won't sue me because I'm not looking after your estate.

    But you have now publicly shown intent to do damage to a companies property regardless if whether you're in the wrong or not. Realistically not going to suit you favourably in court.

    Also you're trying to use a law that doesn't suit purpose and clutching at a legislation that won't benefit just the public but will protect both sides.

    Any decent defence lawyer will make mince meat if the case and you would be liable for charges left right and centre.

    you = whoever publicly argue or persuade others to immobilise others vehicles = clamper's.

    Companies property... laughable, believe or not but this will not matter in court. *Special Circumstances (recommended reading)

    So, please get any decent or not decent attorney and ask advise on the matter, then let's speak again.


  • Options
    #261
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    tp25 wrote: »
    you = whoever publicly argue or persuade others to immobilise others vehicles = clamper's.

    Companies property... laughable, believe or not but this will not matter in court. *Special Circumstances (recommended reading)

    So, please get any decent or not decent attorney and ask advise on the matter, then let's speak again.

    Is this before or after you come up with the law that stops clampers immobilising your car or evidence that legislation is going to ban clamping?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    Is this before or after you come up with the law that stops clampers immobilising your car or evidence that legislation is going to ban clamping?

    this is after their Illegal clamp will be Legally removed and they will get (along with Company owning clamp) sued for damages.


  • Options
    #263
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    tp25 wrote: »
    this is after their Illegal clamp will be Legally removed and they will get (along with Company owning clamp) sued for damages.

    Completely farcical but looking forward to the newspaper article about it


  • Options
    #264
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    Completely farcical but looking forward to the newspaper article about it

    I imagine you will be the one writing it...

    ... since you brought it to the conversation.


  • Options
    #265
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    tp25 wrote: »
    I imagine you will be the one writing it...

    ... since you brought it to the conversation.
    Wouldn't think so....

    Worth a read:

    http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/environmenttransportcultureandthegaeltacht/submissions/IPA-Opening-Presentation-070212.doc


  • Options
    #266
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    Wouldn't think so....

    Worth a read:

    http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/environmenttransportcultureandthegaeltacht/submissions/IPA-Opening-Presentation-070212.doc

    This in not the Current Law.

    Matt with all respect to whoever pays you (I hope it's not me through the management fees), you should not try to scare public and residents in Charlesland as well as their visitors. This is what is happening in this thread with these (yours) theatrical posts.

    Average person, elder, sick, or average so-called ''average Joe''*, how can they meet their ends while after coming home they see wife, family member or their contractor (plumber, electrician, painter) with a note saying EUR80 or EUR90 for so-called illegally parked vehicle. Get real.

    *no particular reference to any Joe's

    I really hope that you can have some remorse and apologize in this post to those who you emotionally insulted by trying to police something that is not in the current Law.


  • Options
    #267
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    tp25 wrote: »
    This in not the Current Law.

    Matt with all respect to whoever pays you (I hope it's not me through the management fees), you should not try to scare public and residents in Charlesland as well as their visitors. This is what is happening in this thread with these (yours) theatrical posts.

    Average person, elder, sick, or average so-called ''average Joe''*, how can they meet their ends while after coming home they see wife, family member or their contractor (plumber, electrician, painter) with a note saying EUR80 or EUR90 for so-called illegally parked vehicle. Get real.

    *no particular reference to any Joe's
    I don't get paid for what I do, I volunteered, along with other residents in all the various areas.

    If you don't like it, get on your committee and ensure it doesn't happen.

    The attitude you're taking towards it is completely ridiculous as you've already stated even if it did come into your area it wouldn't affect you as you don't illegally park and you pay your fees!


  • Options
    #268
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    I don't get paid for what I do, I volunteered, along with other residents in all the various areas.

    If you don't like it, get on your committee and ensure it doesn't happen.

    The attitude you're taking towards it is completely ridiculous as you've already stated even if it did come into your area it wouldn't affect you as you don't illegally park and you pay your fees!

    Don't try to make friends with me, by posting reference to me paying fees ''!'' - this doesn't work that way.

    OP - can you close this unnecessary thread as it causes misinformation for the public. Those who know the current law will know

    what to do to remove the illegal clamps.


  • Options
    #269
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    Also your average joes are the ones complaining about parking and unpaid fees and they have voted this in.


  • Options
    #270
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    tp25 wrote: »
    Don't try to make friends with me.

    I'm not and have no intentions of doing so. Your posts just sound like an angry child who isn't getting his way and I've a logical argument for almost every point you've made.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    tp25
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭tp25


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    Also your average joes are the ones complaining about parking and unpaid fees and they have voted this in.

    sorry but not all of allowed voters voted. Some were busy working... Can you

    stop this theatre?


Advertisement