Appeal a clamping fine

stepbar

You can take this suitation to be purely hypothetical....

Lets say "my friend" parked his car in a parking space in Ranelagh. He goes to pay for parking at the machine (which is two car spaces away) and finds that the machines is not taking money because it says that it is a free parking period. "My friend" walks off happy thinking " great free parking" but returns an hour later to discover a clamp on his car. Curious (as the machine had told otherwise) he walks up to the nearest sign and discovers that the parking spot is actually a clearway between 5 - 7pm Mon - Sat and that Parking is free on a Sat from 10am - 3pm. For argument sake lets say he parked his car @ 6pm.

Like a man he paid the fine and went on his way. However on further reflection he though that its was a bit rediculus that (in simple terms) the machine says "yes" and the sign says "no".

Now my question is, under what grounds "could" he make an appeal (if any)against the fine?

Gobán Saor

Commiserations to your "friend" on being the victim of the bastard clampers. Put a clamp on their mother's hearse, them lads would:D:D

Anyway, don't know whether this would be grounds to win an appeal. BUT I do remember reading recently that a surprisingly high percentage of appeals ARE successful. Of the order of 50% or so IIRC. I'd put it in anyway and make the bastards investigate whether the signage actually was unreasonable.

Resist, resist, resist..........

ian_m

On what grounds might this person consider appealing? Sounds tricky...
Dodgy meters? What proof.

johnnyskeleton

stepbar wrote: »

You can take this suitation to be purely hypothetical....

Lets say "my friend" parked his car in a parking space in Ranelagh. He goes to pay for parking at the machine (which is two car spaces away) and finds that the machines is not taking money because it says that it is a free parking period. "My friend" walks off happy thinking " great free parking" but returns an hour later to discover a clamp on his car. Curious (as the machine had told otherwise) he walks up to the nearest sign and discovers that the parking spot is actually a clearway between 5 - 7pm Mon - Sat and that Parking is free on a Sat from 10am - 3pm. For argument sake lets say he parked his car @ 6pm.

Like a man he paid the fine and went on his way. However on further reflection he though that its was a bit rediculus that (in simple terms) the machine says "yes" and the sign says "no".

Now my question is, under what grounds "could" he make an appeal (if any)against the fine?

Is it possible that in this hypothetical situation the machine didn't say free parking period, that it said parking free period?

Is it possible that the machine simply didn't take the money and said no parking tickets can be dispensed at this time, and the hypothetical friend just assumed that this meant free parking?

There is a difference between a normal parking spot which has meter parking between certain hours, and a clearway which doesn't have any parking between specified times.

Also, I'd imagine that this hypothetical person was the only person parked on the street. Otherwise, you can see why he misunderstood what the machine was saying.

stepbar

Is Photographic evidence admissable? Lets say he goes back at the exact same time (say tomorrow) and takes a photo of the message? and the signage in the area with a strongly worded letter? However the letter would need a basis for appeal which is the problem. Finding the most credible one that is.....

N.B: For the purpose of this scene, on the particular evening other cars were clamped on the same road. Lets hypothetically say that a car two spaces was clamped also and about 4-5 others along the next 50 - 100 metres down the street as he made his way down the street (after the clamp had been released).

johnnyskeleton

stepbar wrote: »

Is Photographic evidence admissable? Lets say he goes back at the exact same time (say tomorrow) and takes a photo of the message? and the signage in the area with a strongly worded letter? However the letter would need a basis for appeal which is the problem. Finding the most credible one that is.....

Of course it is. Clamping appeals are internal appeals and go nowhere near court. I think the difficulty is that they could say that while the machine was misleading, one should still have recognised the clearway sign.

stepbar wrote:

N.B: For the purpose of this scene, on the particular evening other cars were clamped on the same road. Lets hypothetically say that a car two spaces was clamped also and about 4-5 others along the next 50 - 100 metres down the street as he made his way down the street (after the clamp had been released).

If there were other cars clamped when the hypothetical friend arrived it would be a pretty careless thing to do to assume that there was free parking.

stepbar

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If there were other cars clamped when the hypothetical friend arrived it would be a pretty careless thing to do to assume that there was free parking.

Lets say that none of the cars in the spaces immediately infront or behind where clamped when he pulled into the space and walked off. However cars further up the road "may" have been clamped. It is not known. When he left he noticed quite a number of cars clamped on the way up the road.

Our man in Havana

What Act or SI gives them the power to clamp?

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote: »

What Act or SI gives them the power to clamp?

101B of the road traffic act as inserted by s.9 Dublin Transport Authority (Dissolution) Act, 1987.

Each local authority makes its own rules as regards parking, so see for example:

http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Parking%20Bye-Laws%202007_tcm35-54641.pdf

johnnyskeleton

stepbar wrote: »

Lets say that none of the cars in the spaces immediately infront or behind where clamped when he pulled into the space and walked off. However cars further up the road "may" have been clamped. It is not known. When he left he noticed quite a number of cars clamped on the way up the road.

My point would be that it would be very hard to say you didn't realise it was a clearway if all the cars were clamped; it is not to say that the lack of clamped cars would support the conclusion that it is free parking.

As with all these things, the more noise you make the more likely:
A) they will give up and grant your appeal
being civil servants, will send you more and more provocative letters just for the entertainment value.

Jo King

From what I have been told a lot of appeals succeed on grounds of contradictory road signs. It is a criminal offence to park illegally and the indications that it is must be unambigous.

Victor

stepbar, I suspect, in all likelyhood that a mistake was made by the driver.

stepbar wrote: »

the machines is not taking money because it says that it is a free parking period.

What does the machine actually say?

Curious (as the machine had told otherwise) he walks up to the nearest sign and discovers that the parking spot is actually a clearway between 5 - 7pm Mon - Sat and that Parking is free on a Sat from 10am - 3pm.

This doesn't sound right. What street is it? Might it be Ranelagh(note the street is called Ranelagh, not Ranelagh Road or main street or whatever) itself, near the Bank of Ireland.

Now my question is, under what grounds "could" he make an appeal (if any)against the fine?

One ground would be that he was led to believe by the machine that parking was free. As to whether a reasonable man would take this interpretation is another matter.

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Commiserations to your "friend" on being the victim of the bastard clampers.

Conjecture - we have no evidence of the clamper's parentage, not that it matters.

Put a clamp on their mother's hearse, them lads would:D:D

Conjecture and leading the witness. And completely dependent on the procedure for dealing with hearses, the professional ethics of the workers and as to whether they take time off for their own mother's funeral.

Anyway, don't know whether this would be grounds to win an appeal. BUT I do remember reading recently that a surprisingly high percentage of appeals ARE successful. Of the order of 50% or so IIRC. I'd put it in anyway and make the bastards investigate whether the signage actually was unreasonable.

A misleading statistic. I understand only about 1% of clampings are appealled, leaving 99.5% unappealed and one can only assume justified. By contrast, I hear less than 50% of court cases are won - that how bad lawyers are.

ian_m wrote: »

On what grounds might this person consider appealing? Sounds tricky...
Dodgy meters?

Not necessarily a dodgy meter, more a misleading one.

ian_m wrote: »

What proof.

I understand the proof level necessary for an appeal is relatively low. Its a parking fine, not a Supreme Court appeal.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

101B of the road traffic act as inserted by s.9 Dublin Transport Authority (Dissolution) Act, 1987.

Each local authority makes its own rules as regards parking, so see for example:

http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Parking%20Bye-Laws%202007_tcm35-54641.pdf

Also S.I. No. 247/1998 — Road Traffic (Immobilisation of Vehicles) Regulations, 1998 and Appeals Process

stepbar wrote: »

Is Photographic evidence admissable?

I imagine it is.

Lets say he goes back at the exact same time (say tomorrow) and takes a photo of the message? and the signage in the area

Sounds reasonable.

takes a photo of the message? and the signage in the area with a strongly worded letter?

Not the most eloquent of sentences, but a clear straightforward complaint on the form, together with the relevant photos are probably the best. Threatening letters are probably uncalled for.

However the letter would need a basis for appeal which is the problem. Finding the most credible one that is.....

As above.

N.B: For the purpose of this scene, on the particular evening other cars were clamped on the same road. Lets hypothetically say that a car two spaces was clamped also and about 4-5 others along the next 50 - 100 metres down the street as he made his way down the street (after the clamp had been released).

This might indicate that this is an ongoing thing, where there have been no successful appeals.

The Appeal Commissioner is independent and not a civil servant.

chris_john_lane

Just got clamped!!!! Paid the fine, the machine wouldn't take more than a euro off me, so I put the ticket on the car came back later(after it expired) got clamped.... Is it even worth appealing it??!!

hullaballoo

chris_john_lane wrote: »

Just got clamped!!!! Paid the fine, the machine wouldn't take more than a euro off me, so I put the ticket on the car came back later(after it expired) got clamped.... Is it even worth appealing it??!!

Did you have a ticket to cover you at the time you were clamped?

chris_john_lane

hullaballoo wrote: »

Did you have a ticket to cover you at the time you were clamped?

No! The machine wouldn't take enough coins for the two hours I wanted.. It kept rejecting coins after I put one euro in... I should have went back and moved the car but I didn't get back on time.. I paid for an hour

hullaballoo

It's possible you were in a one hour maximum stay zone.

That doesn't matter, though. You are required to have a valid ticket.

Was it a private clamping company? If so, your appeal will be unsuccessful in any event.

chris_john_lane

hullaballoo wrote: »

It's possible you were in a one hour maximum stay zone.

That doesn't matter, though. You are required to have a valid ticket.

Was it a private clamping company? If so, your appeal will be unsuccessful in any event.

No it wasn't a one hour max zone. I just feel they didn't give me the facility to pay for the required time I needed. I tried to pay it a few times. Yeah private company!! I'll appeal anyway I suppose

Five Lamps

The signs dictate the parking times. You need to check them before you even pull in. That's the whole point of them in the first place.

You have zero chance of an appeal as the signs indicated what the hours of operation are. This why you do a driver theory test and learn the rules of the road.

chris_john_lane

Five Lamps wrote: »

The signs dictate the parking times. You need to check them before you even pull in. That's the whole point of them in the first place.

You have zero chance of an appeal as the signs indicated what the hours of operation are. This why you do a driver theory test and learn the rules of the road.

In a car park with only one pay station that doesn't work properly? What are u supposed to do?

Five Lamps

chris_john_lane wrote: »

In a car park with only one pay station that doesn't work properly? What are u supposed to do?

I'm referring to the OP.

If the machine doesn't work properly then you would have grounds for appeal.

234

chris_john_lane wrote: »

In a car park with only one pay station that doesn't work properly? What are u supposed to do?

Not park there. If it is private land then you can only park there on their terms. Since the machine would only allow you to stay for one hour, then those are the terms. You willingly stayed longer knowing what the likely outcome would be.

chris_john_lane

234 wrote: »

Not park there. If it is private land then you can only park there on their terms. Since the machine would only allow you to stay for one hour, then those are the terms. You willingly stayed longer knowing what the likely outcome would be.

There is not a set time to stay... It's 1.20 an hour it wouldn't take more than 1.00. the machine wasn't working properly

hullaballoo

chris_john_lane wrote: »

There is not a set time to stay... It's 1.20 an hour it wouldn't take more than 1.00. the machine wasn't working properly

You have misunderstood his post.

He means that if the machine is only accepting payment for one hour, that is the amount of time you can park there. It doesn't matter whether the machine is not working properly. You have to pay for the time you are parked there even if that means you have to interrupt whatever you are doing to put another ticket in the car.

Carawaystick

What does this mean?

"Where the owner of a vehicle that is parked and to which an immobilisation device has been fixed under this section shows to the satisfaction of any authorised person that the vehicle was so parked while being used by a person other than the owner and that such use was not authorised by the owner, the authorised person shall waive the prescribed charge and he or a person acting under his direction shall remove the immobilisation device from the vehicle."

If A loans a car to B and says "take it handy and don't break any laws"
has B's illegal parking been authorised by A?
If not is it clamp off and free parking?


What is the bar for "to the satisfaction of ... authorised person" Is it a balance of probabilities?
it it based on what a reasonable person should take to be convinced, not someone who hears sob stories all day every day?

chris_john_lane

Carawaystick wrote: »

What does this mean?

"Where the owner of a vehicle that is parked and to which an immobilisation device has been fixed under this section shows to the satisfaction of any authorised person that the vehicle was so parked while being used by a person other than the owner and that such use was not authorised by the owner, the authorised person shall waive the prescribed charge and he or a person acting under his direction shall remove the immobilisation device from the vehicle."

If A loans a car to B and says "take it handy and don't break any laws"
has B's illegal parking been authorised by A?
If not is it clamp off and free parking?


What is the bar for "to the satisfaction of ... authorised person" Is it a balance of probabilities?

it it based on what a reasonable person should take to be convinced, not someone who hears sob stories all day every day?

What are you smoking?!!

Del2005

chris_john_lane wrote: »

In a car park with only one pay station that doesn't work properly? What are u supposed to do?

Tell them. They will have the opportunity to repair the machine and either authorise you to stay for your 2 hours or say leave after your time is up.

chris_john_lane

Del2005 wrote: »

Tell them. They will have the opportunity to repair the machine and either authorise you to stay for your 2 hours or say leave after your time is up.

Phone their premium number? I tried that as the number was on the machine and couldn't get through to them.