clamped appeal and conflict

Michael D Not Higgins

MYOB wrote: »

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

It's more the "if they see you leave the vehicle and do not attempt to tell you about the impending clamp" bit I'm asking about. Of course they have ID but I can't see them having to race up and down an area warning everyone of clamps, surely a sign is there to do that.

Michael D Not Higgins

keithclancy wrote: »

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.

It appears that these are two separate car parks with different clamping companies and different rules, therefore the sign in the car park he was clamped in is the relevant one. The NCPS car park does not allow overnight parking. The APCOA car park allows max one hour (but can't see anything about overnight due to resolution.

Maybe the APCOA car park is the one you should park in for McD's

Greenmachine

I really feel for you OP. I hate private clampers. They are all a bunch of <SNIP>. Constantly see their vans parked illegal on double yellow line on swords road and drumcondra road etc.

overshoot

right if the OP arrived back at 00.02 clampers at 00.01, someone is fudging their times & costa will have cameras if its not the OP

anyway costa is the building nearest northwood avenue with the curved ends (google maps) its at the bottom right end, mcdonalds behind it.
if the both OP's signs are from the costa car park then he has a clear case for contradictory information, its no where near big enough for double standards, the street view image date is 2009 showing the APCOA signs at either entrance. if the NCPS ones are the 'current' signs the older 24hr signs should have been taken down. Pretty sure the courts would side with the OP

L1011

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

It's more the "if they see you leave the vehicle and do not attempt to tell you about the impending clamp" bit I'm asking about. Of course they have ID but I can't see them having to race up and down an area warning everyone of clamps, surely a sign is there to do that.

I have a feeling that bit was made up.

Michael D Not Higgins

overshoot wrote: »

right if the OP arrived back at 00.02 clampers at 00.01, someone is fudging their times & costa will have cameras if its not the OP

anyway costa is the building nearest northwood avenue with the curved ends (google maps) its at the bottom right end, mcdonalds behind it.
if the both OP's signs are from the costa car park then he has a clear case for contradictory information, its no where near big enough for double standards, the street view image date is 2009 showing the APCOA signs at either entrance. if the NCPS ones are the 'current' signs the older 24hr signs should have been taken down. Pretty sure the courts would side with the OP

Ah I see the APCOA signs on streetview now. Yes, if both are there for the same carpark, OP does seem to have a legitimate grievance.

LorMal

Cabaal wrote: »

Yeah, I mean how dare people respect the rules! Its shocking!
:rolleyes:

Is this a generational thing? i find it incredible how many posters think that just because some random private company post 'rules' on a sign, that it is not valid to question them?

When did Ireland become so rules oriented? Alles in ordung??

keithclancy

LorMal wrote: »

Is this a generational thing? i find it incredible how many posters think that just because some random private company post 'rules' on a sign, that it is not valid to question them?

When did Ireland become so rules oriented? Alles in ordung??

Actually in Germany they are very lenient on parking, just visit Dusseldorf and you'll see cars just dumped in the driving lane while people have gone off to get shopping.

Cabaal

LorMal wrote: »

When did Ireland become so rules oriented?

It hasn't, thats the problem and it explains so much wrong with this country when it comes to everything from planning permission, traffic offenses and all the rest.

People see rules and laws as rough guidelines and nothing more and like to moan when they get in trouble when they break them.
:rolleyes:

P. Breathnach

I thought Ryanair had trained the people of Ireland, particularly the younger generation, in rules compliance.

I'm not being entirely frivolous. It's clear that many clampers adopt sharp practice. In general, the case for clamping is rooted in a supposed need to regulate parking and to protect the interests of people who are prevented from parking by others who overstay their permission. Sometimes there are other arguments. But when clampers regularly move in very quickly, it seems likely that their objective is revenue maximisation, not parking management. But whatever their motivation, if you breach parking rules, your goose is cooked.

emeldc

Cabaal wrote: »

It hasn't, thats the problem and it explains so much wrong with this country when it comes to everything from planning permission, traffic offenses and all the rest.

People see rules and laws as rough guidelines and nothing more and like to moan when they get in trouble when they break them.
:rolleyes:

But don't people challenge laws all the time in court, and sometimes they even win, forcing a change in that law. Are they to be seen as moaners too?

sparksfly

I'm not advocating damaging any property, I have paid a clamping fine before without quibble but in your case I would simply remove the clamp and drive away without a second thought.

Michael D Not Higgins

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I thought Ryanair had trained the people of Ireland, particularly the younger generation, in rules compliance.

I'm not being entirely frivolous. It's clear that many clampers adopt sharp practice. In general, the case for clamping is rooted in a supposed need to regulate parking and to protect the interests of people who are prevented from parking by others who overstay their permission. Sometimes there are other arguments. But when clampers regularly move in very quickly, it seems likely that their objective is revenue maximisation, not parking management. But whatever their motivation, if you breach parking rules, your goose is cooked.

The secondary effect is that people understand that clampers are only around the corner and are less likely to 'risk it'. I'm not advocating their inflexible nature on clamping appeals etc. but their strict application of the rules is fine by me.

LorMal

Cabaal wrote: »

It hasn't, thats the problem and it explains so much wrong with this country when it comes to everything from planning permission, traffic offenses and all the rest.

People see rules and laws as rough guidelines and nothing more and like to moan when they get in trouble when they break them.
:rolleyes:

Hi Cabaal,

have you lived abroad? Having lived for 5 years in Northern Europe, I was delighted to return home to Ireland where there (at least) used to be a certain humanity around the strict application of the rules.
I am not condoning corruption in any circumstances (this is where I agree that Ireland has real issues) but I do think there is huge value in our culture of allowing some leeway when it makes sense and is humane and compassionate.
Unfortunately, this flexibility is diminishing and I sense that people like you will end up getting what you wish for - and I assure you a very strict rules orientation is not as positive for society as it may look from the outside. It is miserable.
These clampers are creating arbitrary rules to profit on people. Its mean and callous.

dudara

emeldc wrote: »

But don't people challenge laws all the time in court, and sometimes they even win, forcing a change in that law. Are they to be seen as moaners too?

Yes, and that is valid because they have gone through a clearly defined process to make the change and weight of legal opinion agrees with them.

For the most part, a lot of Irish people have a very "flexible" attitude to minor rules/laws. Look at the amount of idiots driving in the first overtaking lane on a three-lane motorway/carriageway or the amount of people who use a mobile phone when driving. Down in Cork, where there is no clamping, parking is like the Wild Wild West at times.

Cabaal

LorMal wrote: »

have you lived abroad? Having lived for 5 years in Northern Europe, I was delighted to return home to Ireland where there (at least) used to be a certain humanity around the strict application of the rules.

Traveled around Europe and I must say its refreshing as hell to see people respect rules and this in turn causes them to respect people, this is especially true when it comes to other road users.

I do think there is huge value in our culture of allowing some leeway when it makes sense and is humane and compassionate.

Yeah, I mean its just great when a learner permit driver driving on their own with no L plates is pulled over by a Gardai for doing something stupid and not only do they get away with what they've done stupid but the Gardai leaves the learner permit driver continue on their own.

So they don't learn that its wrong to drive on their own or drive without L plates and as such they'll continue doing so as long as they,

What a great situation that creates,

Unfortunately, this flexibility is diminishing and I sense that people like you will end up getting what you wish for

Safer roads?
Idiots not double parking?
Idiots not parking up on footpaths?
Idiots respecting cyclists when driving?

Sounds awful
:rolleyes:

P. Breathnach

LorMal wrote: »

...
have you lived abroad? Having lived for 5 years in Northern Europe, I was delighted to return home to Ireland where there (at least) used to be a certain humanity around the strict application of the rules....

I have to ask: did Ryanair carry you home?

I wonder how many of the people who despise clampers also lionise Ryanair for their "no-nonsense" approach.

emeldc

dudara wrote: »

Yes, and that is valid because they have gone through a clearly defined process to make the change and weight of legal opinion agrees with them.

Absolutely correct, and if the OP feels strong enough about it, is he not at the start of that process. I am not a rebel by any means but I have no problem objecting to the rules if I think they're unfair. In this case there were conflicting signs and a clamp that was supposed to have been fitted in 60 secs. I would put money on it that this could be challenged successfully in court.
I have long since accepted that the clamper was within his rights to fit the clamp but I fail to see why you and other posters can't accept the OP's right to challenge it.
Isn't is amazing how the champers backed down when the earlier poster told them to keep the car. They're not so quick to enforce their own rules when it going to cost them money.

dudara

This thread doesn't appear to be going anywhere at the moment. If the OP wants it reopened, they can PM me or one of the other moderators.

dudara