Clamping in residential area

TheChizler

jungleman wrote: »

Yeah I see where you're both coming from. The clamp can be removed without damaging it though, it's just a case of cutting through the lock.

Except that would be damage.

jungleman

TheChizler wrote: »

Except that would be damage.

Not to the clamp. The lock is separate. If they want to chase me for a €10 lock then they're more than welcome.

Little CuChulainn

Incidentally, if you simply pick the lock then no damage is done and there is no issue.

Paulw

jungleman wrote: »

Not to the clamp. The lock is separate. If they want to chase me for a €10 lock then they're more than welcome.

Again, you fail to see the point raise. They will not come after you for money. They would lodge a complaint of criminal damage. The DPP would prosecute. If convicted of that, you may not be able to travel to the US, Australia and other countries, as you would have a criminal conviction. Lock, clamp, chain are all part of the clamping mechanism.

The Gardai won't give you advice, as it is a civil matter at this point.

As I said before, get your girlfriend to chase the landlord, and get the fee back from landlord. Let the landlord deal with the improper clamping issue.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Grolschevik

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

"Would" is the conditional sense. It does not necessarily imply "will".

BeatNikDub

jungleman wrote: »

Okay, her permit is totally 100% valid. There are no cash problems with the landlord or the management company. As far as relations go with the girlfriend and the management/landlord, they are absolutely fine. I found out too that it was her decision to pay the years rent up front, she had the money saved and decided to pay it in one go rather than sit on it and maybe start spending it (as she is won't to do...). Thanks for the suggestions though!

The problem is with NCPS, that much is 100%. She has emailed them and rang them to see if anyone has bothered to look at her appeals and no-one is answering her. They are an absolute shower. It's like they are untouchable, they can just go around clamping people's cars when they are completely in the wrong! And when they are in the wrong, the victim has to go through the process or submitting an appeal and waiting around for it to be looked at. It's an absolute joke, they are a law onto themselves. Far stronger regulation is needed.

I've decided that the next time she is clamped (I'm sure there will be a next time), I'm gonna get an angle grinder and bolt cutters and cut the lock off the clamp. I'll drop it around to the nearest Garda station and inform NCPS they can collect it from there.

They actually make my blood boil. :mad:

A similar thing happened in my development with the clamping of a disabled persons car in a valid spot. We kicked up such a stink that they eventually removed the clamp. We did not pay but were in a position to leave the car where it was for a few days. Complain to who you can, TD's, their CEO, make it very clear you are in the right and therefore will not be going away.
Good luck

MrWalsh

Paulw wrote: »

Again, you fail to see the point raise. They will not come after you for money. They would lodge a complaint of criminal damage. The DPP would prosecute. If convicted of that, you may not be able to travel to the US, Australia and other countries, as you would have a criminal conviction. Lock, clamp, chain are all part of the clamping mechanism.

Scaremongering much?? :rolleyes:

The clampers will absolutely not allow a case to go to court because they risk the whole house of cards collapsing.

The DPP have no interest in prosecuting cases for a tenners worth of criminal damage. Particularly where it is impossible to prove who removed the clamp.

Remove it and leave the clamp there. Bin the damaged lock. Or chain link.

They brought in clamping in my complex to enforce non payment of arrears and make a nice little sideline for the management company. All that happens now is that you see clamps cut off and left lying around the place.

The Guards laughed about it and said it was a civil matter and as no damaged lock was left lying around there was no proof that it had been criminally damaged by anyone, it could have been stolen for all they know.

DPP - seriously!!

Paulw

MrWalsh wrote: »

They brought in clamping in my complex to enforce non payment of arrears and make a nice little sideline for the management company.

Not sure why you refer to it as a "sideline for the management company" since the management company (which all owners are members of) make nothing from clamping. The clamping company make the money, not the management company. Clamping is normally voted in at an AGM, but then again, those who don't pay their management fees normally don't have a vote at such meetings.

People not paying their management fees are the cause for most of the hassle around this in the first place.

But, again, this is not the OPs case, since they are a tenant, and the issue should be dealt with by their landlord.

Larbre34

I am a resident and director of a management company in what sounds like a similar arrangement to the OP.

We use clamping where people attempt to store cars, or where management fees are unpaid. It is remarkably effective!

However, the clamping company only do what we instruct them to. The OPs partner should approach them through the managing agent, forget the clampers themselves.

If it has become ridiculous and the OP is completely paid up and doing everything right and still being clamped, then a solicitors letter to the agent and management company would be the way to go. NCPS are the monkey in all this, you need to get in touch with the organ grinder.

MrWalsh

Paulw wrote: »

Not sure why you refer to it as a "sideline for the management company" since the management company (which all owners are members of) make nothing from clamping. The clamping company make the money, not the management company. Clamping is normally voted in at an AGM, but then again, those who don't pay their management fees normally don't have a vote at such meetings.

Yes yes you are always at pains to tell this story but the truth is that not all arrangements are like yours and there are plenty of management company directors creaming off the clamping arrangements. Its naive of you to think otherwise.

And yes yes, people who dont pay dont have a vote etc etc..... I am fully paid up and have 1 vote. Unfortunately so do a lot of people. Thats the problem with democracy, every moron gets a vote.

And no, clamping was not voted in at our AGM, the directors tried to introduce it in a clandestine manner and it was my actions in gathering a quorum of signatures and insisting on calling an EGM that resulted it in being discussed at all. I suspect the same happens in many developments.

daUbiq

You should remove the clamp your self every time they put it on...

Little CuChulainn

Larbre34 wrote: »

We use clamping where people attempt to store cars, or where management fees are unpaid. It is remarkably effective!

Extortion usually is.

jd

MrWalsh wrote: »

Scaremongering much?? :rolleyes:

The clampers will absolutely not allow a case to go to court because they risk the whole house of cards collapsing.

Developer brought our OMC and clamping company to court as tenants' cars were getting clamped. There was a temporary injunction granted, but in the end the judge didn't renew it and told him to pay his service charges.

jungleman

I've pretty much made up my mind now, the next time she gets clamped I'm just gonna cut the lock or chain off the fúcker. I went to the trouble of sticking her permit permanently to her dash yesterday, so there is no way it can fall off or "not be visible". So if they go ahead and clamp her, I'll go ahead and unclamp her. If I'm in the mood I'll take the clamp to one side and piss all over it.

Little CuChulainn

jungleman wrote: »

I've pretty much made up my mind now, the next time she gets clamped I'm just gonna cut the lock or chain off the fúcker. I went to the trouble of sticking her permit permanently to her dash yesterday, so there is no way it can fall off or "not be visible". So if they go ahead and clamp her, I'll go ahead and unclamp her. If I'm in the mood I'll take the clamp to one side and piss all over it.

You should still ring them and give them the option to remove it first.

jungleman

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You should still ring them and give them the option to remove it first.

I'd be incriminating myself a bit though if I rang them. As far as they'll be concerned, the clamp fell off and someone had the goodwill to move it to one side and leave it for them to collect at their convenience.

jd

Has she got clamped since you started the thread?

Little CuChulainn

jungleman wrote: »

I'd be incriminating myself a bit though if I rang them. As far as they'll be concerned, the clamp fell off and someone had the goodwill to move it to one side and leave it for them to collect at their convenience.

I mean ring them and tell them they made a mistake. If they refuse to remove it then just hang up and do whatever. You've at least given them a chance to rectify their mistake. You don't have to threaten them or anything.

MrWalsh

jd wrote: »

Developer brought our OMC and clamping company to court as tenants' cars were getting clamped. There was a temporary injunction granted, but in the end the judge didn't renew it and told him to pay his service charges.

This is interesting but its the other side of the situation I was commenting on.

In the above the developer brought the clamping company to court. I was commenting on the clamping company bringing someone to court who has cut off a clamp - not going to happen.

MrWalsh

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I mean ring them and tell them they made a mistake. If they refuse to remove it then just hang up and do whatever. You've at least given them a chance to rectify their mistake. You don't have to threaten them or anything.

Why bother? Theyve already extorted money out of the lady twice now - no reason to think they will change.

jungleman

jd wrote: »

Has she got clamped since you started the thread?

No, she was off work for a week and went back home to her folks, she only brought the car back up yesterday. So I'll be keeping a keen eye out this week and next week!

jungleman

MrWalsh wrote: »

Why bother? Theyve already extorted money out of the lady twice now - no reason to think they will change.

Exactly. I'm not going to give them the courtesy of calling them. They didn't give my girlfriend the courtesy of looking at her dashboard to see if there was a permit there.

Little CuChulainn

MrWalsh wrote: »

Why bother? Theyve already extorted money out of the lady twice now - no reason to think they will change.

I just think it would look better for him if he had made an attempt to rectify the situation before taking matters into his own hands.

martomcg

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I just think it would look better for him if he had made an attempt to rectify the situation before taking matters into his own hands.

Have you actually even read the thread?!

MrWalsh

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I just think it would look better for him if he had made an attempt to rectify the situation before taking matters into his own hands.

Meh, the clampers are in a legal grey area anyway so I personally wouldnt be bothered trying to rectify anything. Id simply be removing any devices from my car.

Little CuChulainn

martomcg wrote: »

Have you actually even read the thread?!

Yes

MrWalsh wrote: »

Meh, the clampers are in a legal grey area anyway so I personally wouldnt be bothered trying to rectify anything. Id simply be removing any devices from my car.

I just think it would be better if it ever went to court that you could say for each occasion, "I told them they had clamped the car incorrectly but they refused to remove the clamp."

MrWalsh

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I just think it would be better if it ever went to court that you could say for each occasion, "I told them they had clamped the car incorrectly but they refused to remove the clamp."

It wont.

REXER

The OP should surreptitiously remove the clamp and then just as Surreptitiously affix it to the car of the Director of the management company!

Grolschevik

MrWalsh wrote: »

It wont.

It probably won't, but it could and it has. District Court doesn't set precedent, so the alleged fear of the clampers' "house of cards" collapsing is a myth.

jungleman

REXER wrote: »

The OP should surreptitiously remove the clamp and then just as Surreptitiously affix it to the car of the Director of the management company!

Ha, I have dreamed of this.

MrWalsh

jungleman wrote: »

Ha, I have dreamed of this.

Im just waiting for it to happen in my complex.

TheChizler

REXER wrote: »

The OP should surreptitiously remove the clamp and then just as Surreptitiously affix it to the car of the Director of the management company!

Why? The director has as much say in whether the clampers are there or not as any other property owner.

REXER

The director would be the one with the glib answers!
(It's nothing to do with us, it's between you/the LL and the clamper)
I have the feeling that it could not happen to a better person.

MrWalsh

TheChizler wrote: »

Why? The director has as much say in whether the clampers are there or not as any other property owner.

Not the way they tried to do it in my complex, the directors tried to bring in clamping with no consultation with anyone and then claimed that as directors they had the right to introduce measures such as this for the good of the development without putting it to a vote.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

athtrasna

MrWalsh wrote: »

Not the way they tried to do it in my complex, the directors tried to bring in clamping with no consultation with anyone and then claimed that as directors they had the right to introduce measures such as this for the good of the development without putting it to a vote.

Why was it not in the best interest of the development? Usually clamping us is brought in as a way of forcing people to pay their fees or to stop people abusing parking spaces which are in short supply

Little CuChulainn

athtrasna wrote: »

Why was it not in the best interest of the development? Usually clamping us is brought in as a way of forcing people to pay their fees or to stop people abusing parking spaces which are in short supply

That first reason is called extortion.

Pat Mustard

REXER wrote: »

The OP should surreptitiously remove the clamp and then just as Surreptitiously affix it to the car of the Director of the management company!

Mod:

Promoting illegal activity is not allowed.

athtrasna

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That first reason is called extortion.

Not when people are legally contracted to pay fees and in return get access to common areas among other services. Clamping restricts access to common areas and is the single most effective way of getting fees paid. These fees then pay for essentials like electricity, insurance, refuse.

MrWalsh

athtrasna wrote: »

Why was it not in the best interest of the development? Usually clamping us is brought in as a way of forcing people to pay their fees or to stop people abusing parking spaces which are in short supply

Private clampers are unregulated extortionists, there is no independent appeals process, they are operating in a legal grey area and most of all, clamping someone's car to enforce payment of an unrelated debt is inappropriate and immoral.

The directors have succeeded in lowering the values of the properties by turning the place into the Wild West of clamping, meanwhile no unpaid fees were collected on the back of it and instead we hear angle grinders going at all hours and clamps litter the carpark.

Moronic at best.

MrWalsh

athtrasna wrote: »

Not when people are legally contracted to pay fees and in return get access to common areas among other services. Clamping restricts access to common areas and is the single most effective way of getting fees paid. These fees then pay for essentials like electricity, insurance, refuse.

Doesn't work, not a cent in outstanding revenue was collected on the back if clamping. There's a lovely public road alongside the carpark where people park or else the clamps are cut off.

athtrasna

Non payment of fees leading to the suffering of compliant owners is also immoral. Why should I have bins or insurance cover cut all because some people (often non resident landlords) won't pay what they are legally obliged to. I wholeheartedly support clamping when used in this way.

MrWalsh

athtrasna wrote: »

Non payment of fees leading to the suffering of compliant owners is also immoral. Why should I have bins or insurance cover cut all because some people (often non resident landlords) won't pay what they are legally obliged to. I wholeheartedly support clamping when used in this way.

Except that it doesn't work so you just end up with a devalued property.

I wholeheartedly support removing clamps.

athtrasna

MrWalsh wrote: »

Except that it doesn't work so you just end up with a devalued property.

It does in mine and it adds to property value because the management company has a high rate of fee payment

Eugene Norman

athtrasna wrote: »

Not when people are legally contracted to pay fees and in return get access to common areas among other services. Clamping restricts access to common areas and is the single most effective way of getting fees paid. These fees then pay for essentials like electricity, insurance, refuse.

Are you making up your own story here? Firstly that's not the way to claim owed fees, if it were we could clamp anybody who owed us money. The girl had a permit. Is there any indication she owes fees?

MrWalsh

athtrasna wrote: »

It does in mine and it adds to property value because the management company has a high rate of fee payment

This is why apartment living sucks in Ireland. A democracy where every idiot has a vote.

athtrasna

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Are you making up your own story here? Firstly that's not the way to claim owed fees, if it were we could clamp anybody who owed us money. The girl had a permit. Is there any indication she owes fees?

Of course not, if you read the thread you would see that she's a tenant. It has been pointed out that her permit may have been reported to the clampers as invalid if her landlord owes fees.

As regards fee collection, it's a last resort and is not necessarily permanent but is highly effective

MrWalsh

athtrasna wrote: »

Of course not, if you read the thread you would see that she's a tenant. It has been pointed out that her permit may have been reported to the clampers as invalid if her landlord owes fees.

As regards fee collection, it's a last resort and is not necessarily permanent but is highly effective

So now it's ok to clamp someone's car because someone else owes money!?

Yeah. Nice.

TheChizler

MrWalsh wrote: »

So now it's ok to clamp someone's car because someone else owes money!?

Yeah. Nice.

It's certainly ok to withdraw a permit if money is owed, but we don't even know if this is the case here.