clamped appeal and conflict

emeldc

Paulw wrote: »

So, in your world ... how long should the clamper sit and wait? 1 min isn't enough ... how about 5 min, 10 min, 30 min?? The car was parked a while, according to the OP, no sign of any driver around ... why should the clamping agent hang around to see if someone returns? I'm sure they have other sites to visit too.

Look I think we've established that the clamper was perfectly within his rights to apply the clamp once the clock had passed midnight.
If he was to apply a little discretion he might wait 5 mins. If the clamper had real human feelings (which is unlikely) he might give the driver 10 mins. I really don't think any one could argue with a clamp if they were more than 10 mins over the time. But 60 secs is showing Zero tolerance. It has nothing to do with what other sites he has to visit. It's a money making exercise and in my opinion it's unjust. That's all.

Guy:Incognito

overshoot wrote: »

i hope you have never been annoyed when a garage charges you that 1c you went over the 20e when filling up

Why would you be annoyed? Your bill is 20.01. If the garage wants 20.01 that's perfectly reasonable.

overshoot

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why would you be annoyed? Your bill is 20.01. If the garage wants 20.01 that's perfectly reasonable.

the point was its amazing what a bit off leeway would get you in good will. ok a clamper isnt going to get deliberate repeat customers a garage will. in other words i hope you dont work in customer service!
anyway it only applies if the customer pays cash, a card transaction which many will switch to in that case will cost a lot more than 1c so its actually business sense too! before you look at repeat customers!

Paulw

emeldc wrote: »

Look I think we've established that the clamper was perfectly within his rights to apply the clamp once the clock had passed midnight.

Agreed.

emeldc wrote: »

If he was to apply a little discretion he might wait 5 mins. If the clamper had real human feelings (which is unlikely) he might give the driver 10 mins. It's a money making exercise and in my opinion it's unjust. That's all.

Of course it's money making. It's a business, and every business must make money and a profit.

Just curious ... what work do you do? Would you expect an employee to sit around for 5-10 mins, doing nothing? Do you sit around in your job for 5-10min and do nothing, with the permission of your boss? I doubt it. An idle employee is one that is not making money for the company.

overshoot wrote: »

i hope you have never been annoyed when a garage charges you that 1c you went over the 20e when filling up

Nope, wouldn't bother me in the least, and it happens from time to time. Usually I use an unmanned pump that just charges the card directly, so if it's €20.01, that is fine with me.

To the clamper, a clamped vehicle is just a vehicle. It's not a person.

The OP was unlucky, but you can't blame the clamper. The vehicle was there, unattended and parked beyond the time permitted.

emeldc

Paulw wrote: »

Just curious ... what work do you do? Would you expect an employee to sit around for 5-10 mins, doing nothing? Do you sit around in your job for 5-10min and do nothing, with the permission of your boss? I doubt it. An idle employee is one that is not making money for the company.

In my business I exercise discretion to staff and customers alike because it makes for a happy work place and its good for business. Your comparisons are not relevant as the clamper is not trying to entice more business.
I would be more interested to know what you do for a living, someone who shows zero tolerance and would stop pay on an employee who was 'idle' for 60 seconds or worse still for 5 mins.
Wait.………… you're a clamper!

camel jockey

OP, not seeing the problem. You were parked when you shouldn't have been.

Paulw

emeldc wrote: »

In my business I exercise discretion to staff and customers alike because it makes for a happy work place and its good for business.
Wait.………… you're a clamper!

But, to the clamping company, the customer is the site owner who have contracted them to enforce the terms and conditions they set - no parking between 00:00 and 06:00. The person who parks is not the customer.

Most clamping companies work multiple sites, so a single van would have a number of sites to patrol. If every van sits idle for periods of time, then they are not making money. As you have said, it's a money making business, and they need to keep patrolling their sites to clamp vehicles to make money and keep their customers happy.

I don't have any affilition to any clamping company, and never have.

Cabaal

emeldc wrote: »

Look I think we've established that the clamper was perfectly within his rights to apply the clamp once the clock had passed midnight.
If he was to apply a little discretion he might wait 5 mins. If the clamper had real human feelings (which is unlikely) he might give the driver 10 mins. I really don't think any one could argue with a clamp if they were more than 10 mins over the time. But 60 secs is showing Zero tolerance. It has nothing to do with what other sites he has to visit. It's a money making exercise and in my opinion it's unjust. That's all.

Clamper was doing his job,
Some people in this country have an awful problem respecting the rules.

emeldc, seems you have an awful chip on your shoulder when one of the first things you do when somebody points out that the clamper was just doing their job is the accuse the poster of being a clamper
:rolleyes:

emeldc

Cabaal wrote: »

Clamper was doing his job,
Some people in this country have an awful problem respecting the rules.

emeldc, seems you have an awful chip on your shoulder when one of the first things you do when somebody points out that the clamper was just doing their job is the accuse the poster of being a clamper
:rolleyes:

I really don't know where we're going with this. Paulw has a zero tolerance approach, I would exercise discretion. Why can it not be accepted that our opinions are different. We could argue about it all day but its kind of boring.

Five Lamps

Paulw wrote: »

So, in your world ... how long should the clamper sit and wait? 1 min isn't enough ... how about 5 min, 10 min, 30 min?? The car was parked a while, according to the OP, no sign of any driver around ... why should the clamping agent hang around to see if someone returns? I'm sure they have other sites to visit too.

It's generally assumed that there's 10 min grace.

Whoever wrote the ticket was making a point of 12.01. They would have been smarter if they had of put 12.10 as they can then turn around and say they were totally fair.

On the other hand, perhaps there is a problem with overnight parking in that car park and NCPS were demonstrating zero tolerance.

The OPs only chance is to show that there is adequate or conflicting signage. However, in some of these retail parks, parts of what looks like a single development can have different owners and developers. Different rules may apply to different car parks.

Paulw

Five Lamps wrote: »

It's generally assumed that there's 10 min grace.

I've never heard that before. I would assume that there is no grace period unless otherwise stated. I know that some councils give a 5-10 min grace period, but it's clearly stated on the signs and meters.

It's always safer to assume there is a 0min grace period.

Morph the Cat

emeldc wrote: »

I would exercise discretion.

I'm glad you don't work for me. Their job is to make money for their employer. Using "discretion" and letting people off as they see fit could put themselves & their co-workers out of a job. Genius idea there, Mr. Discretion.

NCPS: "Hi emeldc - I'm your new employer. Welcome aboard. This is the job I'd like you to do, in accordance with our strict guidelines."
emeldc: "Nah, I think I'll just use my own discretion and let some people off if they have a sob story or are just a teeny weeny bit late".
NCPS: "Cool - you're fired. Go join the Samaritans - this is a business."

emeldc

Paulw wrote: »

I've never heard that before. I would assume that there is no grace period unless otherwise stated. I know that some councils give a 5-10 min grace period, but it's clearly stated on the signs and meters.

It's always safer to assume there is a 0min grace period.

A lot of assumptions there

Morph the Cat wrote: »

I'm glad you don't work for me. Their job is to make money for their employer. Using "discretion" and letting people off as they see fit could put themselves & their co-workers out of a job. Genius idea there, Mr. Discretion.

Why have you such an issue with what I think. It's just an opinion. My opinion. Do you feel threatened by it in some way. If you do talk to Joe or build a bridge and GTF over it.
On a side issue, would you, pay (with a smile) a €80 fine and accept 2 penalty points if you were caught 'speeding' at 51kph in a 50kph zone. Of course you wouldn't because even speed vans exercise some discretion as will a guard with just out of date tax or a broken tail light. It's just one human showing humanity to another. So enough of this nonsense, lets agree to disagree and move on. Ok?

Paulw

emeldc wrote: »

On a side issue, would you, pay (with a smile) a €80 fine and accept 2 penalty points if you were caught 'speeding' at 51kph in a 50kph zone. Of course you wouldn't because even speed vans exercise some discretion

The speed vans don't exercise any discretion at all, as proven by the Garda stats on speeding fines. For the vans, once you are over the limit, the camera automatically triggers, which then results in you getting the fine and points in the post. There is no human intervention/discretion in the process. Only Gardai have the power of discretion.

There was a long thread in the motors section about it, where people were getting fines for being just slightly above the limit.

Personally, I wouldn't pay it with a smile, but I would pay it.

emeldc

Paulw wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't pay it with a smile, but I would pay it.

But why not pay it with a smile, if you're over the limit, you're over the limit. Surely you're not saying you would feel hard done by because you were only 1kph over the limit ................. just like the OP because he was 1 minute late.

And don't kid yourself, of course they show discretion, they have to. Some of the older cable driven speedo's are inaccurate to 4 or 5 kph under or over. So those caught doing 55kph may actually be doing closer to 60 kph. Now as with Morph the dog, enough of the nonsense.

Dubl07

Surely the whole point of clamping cars staying for excessive periods was/is to increase the turnover in retail outlets? They're not park & ride areas for commuters but some suffered abuse in the past which was why the clamping was brought in. It defies logic to clamp someone who is using the retail premises when the carpark is almost empty.

I used to shop quite frequently in the whole set of shops at Churchtown but now rarely use any of them and am vocal in explaining to all and sundry the clamping issues that have been encountered by motorists attempting to spend money in the area. Perhaps the problems experienced by who drive to the Churchtown shops has decreased but until I'm not aware of any policy changes. Until I am I will continue to spend my money elsewhere.

Morph the Cat

emeldc wrote: »

But why not pay it with a smile, if you're over the limit, you're over the limit. Surely you're not saying you would feel hard done by because you were only 1kph over the limit ................. just like the OP because he was 1 minute late.

Paying a fine without a smile is not the same as complaining about it to the company then coming on a forum for further whinging, which is what the OP did.

Nobody would pay "with a smile" - but most people, being adults who can accept responsibility for their own actions, would just pay without complaining since it was 100% their fault they got clamped.
Not sure why you keep bringing up that people should be smiling while paying - you're clutching at straws now. Where does smiling even come into this equation? If I get clamped and it was my own fault, I pay - I don't cry about it "waaaa, I was only a few mins late - his is soooo unfair!!". I pay - and do you know why? Because it was my fault and I'm an adult who accepts responsibility for my actions. My facial expression during the process is irrelevant... well, to most people it's irrelevant. To you it's "ha! you weren't smiling while you paid that fine - gotcha!" - gotcha for what, I'm still not sure...

emeldc wrote: »

Morph the dog

hahaha - My username is 'cat - but you changed it to 'dog' because you are funny. Do another one!!

dudara

Posters - enough of the handbags please. You've derailed the thread. If anyone continues this discussion, there will be infractions/bans.

dudara

Cienciano

Always carry a bolt cutters in your boot op.

dudara

We are not going to get into a discussion on the deliberate damaging of private property - you can take that over to the Motors forum

dudara

D3PO

cant see your complaint OP you were overtime so being clamped was fair game.

I also don't believe you were back at 2 mins past midnight. Theres no way the clamper would have got the clamp installed and be gone that quickly. Id say theres a fair amount of bending of the truth going on tbh.

Five Lamps

D3PO wrote: »

cant see your complaint OP you were overtime so being clamped was fair game.

I also don't believe you were back at 2 mins past midnight. Theres no way the clamper would have got the clamp installed and be gone that quickly. Id say theres a fair amount of bending of the truth going on tbh.

he may be technically fair game. However, he did have the use of the car parking space up to 00:00. Unless, the clamping staff have been issued with some highly accurate watches it would be unreasonable to clamp somebody at 00:01. Plus they would have to have started the clamp prior to midnight - whether that be putting on the clamp or writing the ticket. Perhaps they have Swiss watches and nimble fingers.

However, this is not how clamping should be carried out and such zeal only serves to bring the legitimate use of clamping into disrepute. It reflects badly on the land owner and the clamping co.

D3PO

Five Lamps wrote: »

he may be technically fair game. However, he did have the use of the car parking space up to 00:00. Unless, the clamping staff have been issued with some highly accurate watches it would be unreasonable to clamp somebody at 00:01. Plus they would have to have started the clamp prior to midnight - whether that be putting on the clamp or writing the ticket. Perhaps they have Swiss watches and nimble fingers.

However, this is not how clamping should be carried out and such zeal only serves to bring the legitimate use of clamping into disrepute. It reflects badly on the land owner and the clamping co.

or maybe just maybe the OP's I was back at 2 mins past midnight really translates to I was back at ten minutes past but it makes for a better argument to say I was back at 12.02 ...

Its just not plausible they were back at 2 mins past and there wasn't sight nor sound of a clamper in the car park.

Michael D Not Higgins

Five Lamps wrote: »

he may be technically fair game. However, he did have the use of the car parking space up to 00:00. Unless, the clamping staff have been issued with some highly accurate watches it would be unreasonable to clamp somebody at 00:01. Plus they would have to have started the clamp prior to midnight - whether that be putting on the clamp or writing the ticket. Perhaps they have Swiss watches and nimble fingers.

However, this is not how clamping should be carried out and such zeal only serves to bring the legitimate use of clamping into disrepute. It reflects badly on the land owner and the clamping co.

Maybe they write the ticket first and then clamp it?

Also, I'm sure the company have rules for measuring time. If they checked their phone against a reference once a week, they won't lose 60 seconds.

ch750536

I parked in a residents only area one time to view a flat for rent. Was gone for 10 mins max, came back car was clamped. Yes, I did see the signs everywhere etc but the estate agent was parked next to me and not a resident.

Anyway, I only drive wrecks of little value, so I called the clampers and on their arrival offered €20, they declined. I then removed all my goods, told them to keep the car in full payment, left the keys in the car and called a cab.

After about 10 calls to me (some abusive I might add) they agreed to allow me to pay €20.

Later I found out that clampers present & waiting for people (as was also the case with me) are acting outside the law if they see you leave the vehicle and do not attempt to tell you about the impending clamp.

Michael D Not Higgins

ch750536 wrote: »

I parked in a residents only area one time to view a flat for rent. Was gone for 10 mins max, came back car was clamped. Yes, I did see the signs everywhere etc but the estate agent was parked next to me and not a resident.

Anyway, I only drive wrecks of little value, so I called the clampers and on their arrival offered €20, they declined. I then removed all my goods, told them to keep the car in full payment, left the keys in the car and called a cab.

After about 10 calls to me (some abusive I might add) they agreed to allow me to pay €20.

Later I found out that clampers present & waiting for people (as was also the case with me) are acting outside the law if they see you leave the vehicle and do not attempt to tell you about the impending clamp.

Never heard that. Which law?

L1011

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Never heard that. Which law?

None I'd imagine - there's no law either regulating or explicitly allowing clamping by private operators who are not authorised in the first place, hence there can't be any rules about warning you.

There are regulations that allow the State to authorise them, e.g. DSPS in Dublin, Irish Rail's clampers, etc. To add to that, there's S113 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (as Amended) that makes interference with the mechanisms of a motorised vehicle an offence.

General experience from people on the Motors forum and elsewhere is that when a clamper is threatened with that, they'll remove the clamp - as none of them are willing to end up being the courtcase that sets precedent and destroys their entire industry. As a result there isn't actually any precedent at all on the issue that anyone has found. A judge may not agree with that interpretation but they haven't been asked to yet. Any cases that have been brought and won by clamping firms have related to damage to the clamps, locks etc and not this.

You're still liable for any parking fees regardless.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

If they checked their phone against a reference once a week, they won't lose 60 seconds.

UMTS (3G) phones, e.g. all of them now realistically, set their time off the network operators clock by default. Those are generally highly accurate to prevent claims about incorrect billing around cutovers from peak to off-peak, weekends, etc.

Michael D Not Higgins

MYOB wrote: »

None I'd imagine - there's no law either regulating or explicitly allowing clamping by private operators who are not authorised in the first place, hence there can't be any rules about warning you.

There are regulations that allow the State to authorise them, e.g. DSPS in Dublin, Irish Rail's clampers, etc. To add to that, there's S113 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (as Amended) that makes interference with the mechanisms of a motorised vehicle an offence.

General experience from people on the Motors forum and elsewhere is that when a clamper is threatened with that, they'll remove the clamp - as none of them are willing to end up being the courtcase that sets precedent and destroys their entire industry. As a result there isn't actually any precedent at all on the issue that anyone has found. A judge may not agree with that interpretation but they haven't been asked to yet. Any cases that have been brought and won by clamping firms have related to damage to the clamps, locks etc and not this.

You're still liable for any parking fees regardless.

But is there even a law regulating clampers identifying themselves for the local council?

L1011

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

But is there even a law regulating clampers identifying themselves for the local council?

I would imagine (well, wildly guess) the regulations on traffic wardens would cover ID required - the SI that authorises council clamping doesn't anyway.

keithclancy

tarzon wrote: »

On the 11.11.2013 i had parked my car in the Gulliver’sretail park @ 11:30pm just outside costa coffee while i had went around toMcDonalds in my mate’s car to get something to eat. We had come back around onthe 12.11.2013 we had driven back around @ 00.02 to find that my car had beenclamped by your company. I then looked for a sign and to notice that the signwas not in a good location as there is a tree if front of which does not makeit easy to see in the dark. As i had to go over to read the sign it states thatthere is no parking from midnight to 6.00am and as i read the notice on the carthe car was clamped 12.11.2013 @ 00.01 am. On the flip side of that there isanother sign stating that there is a max of one hour parking on the entrance upat the spar which is very confusing. I think that i have been treated unfairlyas being one minute passed twelve as he must have been waiting there andstarted to put the clamp on at twelve o'clock and wrote the ticket at oneminute passed twelve but myunderstanding is that if I’m doing business in the park i should be entitled topark there. On another note when I hadrang the number and tried to explain my situation to the person on the phone hehad a very bad attitude on the phone and did not have good phone manner talkingto costumers I explained to him that I got clamped at one minute passed twelveand that they did not give me a chance to get back quick enough to get may carand decided just to clamp and his answer was you will just have to pay for itto be released there is nothing else that can be done.

Can anyone give and advice on this as I did not get a proper explanation as to why they clamped me

I would argue that since one sign indicates one thing and another indicates something else that this is misleading.

I would expect to read one sign, understand the rules and know if I could park there. Not walk around to check if there are additional signs with additional rules.

If the appeal is unsuccessful then I'd file an application with the small claims court.