Private Estate - Clamping

mel123

I live in an estate run by a management company. The management company have brought in a clamping company to go around and clamp cars that are not parked in a parking spot - ie by the side of a road where there is no obstruction being caused, no double yellows etc. I would agree with clamping if the parked cars were causing an obstruction or danger. I am just wondering if the management comp are within their right to do this? I have heard of someone who looked into it and found by law they were not, but i cant find anything on the internet to back up this claim. Anyone know??

hullaballoo

Is it their land?

dermot_sheehan

If it's private property, and provided they bring it to your attention, you effectively consent to your car being clamped if it's parked contrary to their instructions in return for a licence to enter on to said private land.

Overheal

Should be covered in your existing contract and if not, it should have been ammended. On a non-legal suggestion: it might be friendly of both parties to (re)-negotiate the terms of clamping; Where, why, how, cost, and wether 'resident' vehicles should be exempt through some means (in so far that only vehicles of non-residents would be clamped, ie. Free-parkers, visitors, etc. etc.). I assume the aim of the clamp initiative was to target those specific defenders, anyway?

hullaballoo

I've always considered that the idea of clamping is not to alleviate parking and congestion, but to make money. If you take UCD as an example - 80%+ of the cars that are clamped are not causing any problem by being parked where they are, but they get clamped because the private company that looks after it need to make money.

It's one of these ostensive authority situations that bug me constantly, so excuse the rant.

Rebeller

mel123 wrote:

I live in an estate run by a management company. The management company have brought in a clamping company to go around and clamp cars that are not parked in a parking spot - ie by the side of a road where there is no obstruction being caused, no double yellows etc. I would agree with clamping if the parked cars were causing an obstruction or danger. I am just wondering if the management comp are within their right to do this? I have heard of someone who looked into it and found by law they were not, but i cant find anything on the internet to back up this claim. Anyone know??

If you own the property you live in then you "own" the management company. In other words, this company is not a sovereign independent entity but a manifestation of the house owners' wishes for their estate.

If you are simply renting but paying a fee to the company you might still have a say in what policies are implemented

Victor

Rebeller wrote:

If you own the property you live in then you "own" the management company. In other words, this company is not a sovereign independent entity but a manifestation of the house owners' wishes for their estate.

Actually you are wrong, the management company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders and has responsibilities to other stakeholders.

hullaballoo wrote:

've always considered that the idea of clamping is not to alleviate parking and congestion, but to make money.

Civic clamping schemes tend not to make money, but are primarily revenue protection and traffic measures.

If you take UCD as an example - 80%+ of the cars that are clamped are not causing any problem by being parked where they are, but they get clamped because the private company that looks after it need to make money.

I'm not sure of the scheme UCD uses, but I understand the main problem was parking by non-UCD commuters, which amounts to trespass and a petty fraud / theft (although its not a petty amount when they are all added together).

Who gets the money from the clamping? Does it go direct to the clamping service or does the college pay them a fixed fee for provifing the service, keeping the release fees for themselves?

mel123

The management company claim they make no profit out of this (i am not sure about the situation in UCD), however, i find this unbeliveable. If the cars were parked and causing a danger/obstruction then i wouldnt mind, but they are not - hense why i wonder about the profit being made. Visitor parking is very minimal, and of course people who have more than one car per household then use the visitor parking, so when visitors do actually come they have nowhere to park. It was not in the contract that there would be clamping in the estate, and to this date I am almost certain it has not been amended. Because parking is very limited (one spot even to three beds), the clampers are patrolling the area practically 24/7, of course to get the €80 fee off each person. I just think its ridiculous that you can get clamped in your own estate, and even if you are not parked on a path or double yellow lines (which would usually be illegal) it still warrants a clamp.

Overheal

You might always start a petition... how much notice did they give you before the clamping act was enacted, out of curiosity?

cast_iron

Victor, on the UCD clamping issue - while you are correct to say there is a big problem with outsiders parking there, they are not the ones getting clamped regularly.
It's mainly those who arrive in later and all the legitimate spots are taken by the trespassers, so visitors/students/staff end up getting the brunt of it.

On a related issue, I heard it rumoured over on C&T that clamping, even on private property, could be construed as "interfering with ones property".
Or is it the case that this right is given up upon notification (signs) when entering said private property?

Victor

cast_iron wrote:

On a related issue, I heard it rumoured over on C&T that clamping, even on private property, could be construed as "interfering with ones property".


Or is it the case that this right is given up upon notification (signs) when entering said private property?

I'm going with what gabhain7 said in post 3 and the parallel issues of trespass and whetever contract you have with the college.

cast_iron

On a follow up from that, if one was to remove the clamp on private property, would an offence be committed?

Granted, if one damages the clamp, one would be liable, but if no damage is done and the clamp is left behind, would one be committing an offence?

astraboy

cast_iron wrote:

On a follow up from that, if one was to remove the clamp on private property, would an offence be committed?

Granted, if one damages the clamp, one would be liable, but if no damage is done and the clamp is left behind, would one be committing an offence?

As far as I know no, once the clamp is in the same condition then no law has been broken. In Scotland they don't stand for clamping, its considered theft. I'm inclined to agree in most cases.

Overheal

Then; how do they feel about Towing

Victor

cast_iron wrote:

On a follow up from that, if one was to remove the clamp on private property, would an offence be committed? Granted, if one damages the clamp, one would be liable, but if no damage is done and the clamp is left behind, would one be committing an offence?

I don't think so, but you still have the issue of trespass, breach of contract etc. Expect to be banned and towed the next time.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Have you seen this? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055041472

cast_iron

It doesn't appear to contradict anything here.

mel123

Yes am also keeping an eye on that thread now.
I find it quite interesting to be honest. If this story is true it means that clamping in estates, car parks, shopping centres etc is all illegal.
But, if it is illegal, how are they allowed to operate anyway?!?

Sparks

mel123 wrote:

But, if it is illegal, how are they allowed to operate anyway?!?

There are a number of illegal things going unchallanged in the state at the moment. For example, the armoury in the US embassy is proof a crime was committed, but nothing has ever been done about it. The CS gas issued to the army is illegal, but nothing has ever been done about it. And so forth.

cast_iron

Sparks wrote:

There are a number of illegal things going unchallanged in the state at the moment. For example, the armoury in the US embassy is proof a crime was committed, but nothing has ever been done about it. The CS gas issued to the army is illegal, but nothing has ever been done about it. And so forth.

Link to source?

Sparks

cast_iron wrote:

Link to source?

Firearms Act 2006, Section 1, definition of "prohibited weapon", read with Section 2(3)(b).

cast_iron

Sparks wrote:

Firearms Act 2006, Section 1, definition of "prohibited weapon", read with Section 2(3)(b).

I actually meant the source of the accusations, not the legal end of it.
I'm not trying to claim they are state secrets - more curiosity than anything.

Sparks

The US armory in the embassy has paintball guns used to fire capsaicin capsules (pepper spray, in other words). The Gardai are looking for mace, and the army's been issued with CS gas. All three from the press in the past two months. All of which are technically prohibited weapons, which cannot be held or used by anyone in the state according to the law...

Our man in Havana

The US embassy is technically US soil so the laws of the state don't apply.

I am sure that exemptions will be made in law to cover the army and the gardai.

Sparks

I said

the armoury in the US embassy is proof a crime was committed

The fact that it's US soil is not relevant - the paintball guns had to come in via Irish territory, and there they were prohibited weapons. The crime isn't possession - it was smuggling. And because of how the law is worded, there is no legal mechanism to grant licence or authorisation for anyone in the state, be they foreign or native, civilian or army or garda, to possess, use or carry things like CS, Mace, Pepper spray or stun guns.

Our man in Havana

Diplomatic pouch?

Victor

Sparks wrote:

There are a number of illegal things going unchallanged in the state at the moment. For example, the armoury in the US embassy is proof a crime was committed, but nothing has ever been done about it.

Thats "Little America" - see Viennna Convention.

The CS gas issued to the army is illegal, but nothing has ever been done about it. And so forth.

Illegal to possess or illegal to use?