Irish law regarding clamping

quickdraw2

Haviing read recent posts on this subject I have made the following observations.
Please comment if you have anything to add.

IN A PUBLIC PLACE NOT BOUNDED BY GATES OR FENCES INC PERMANENTLY OPEN ENTRANCES THE FOLLOWING SHOULD APPLY
EVEN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

UNDER 18 yrs old = No contract

CONSUMER LAW
YOU CAN NOT BE BOUND BY A CONTRACT WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONCENT.
NO KNOWLEDGE NO CONSENT = NO CONTRACT

What are terms in a consumer contract?
A contract is an agreement between two or more people that is enforceable by law. When you buy goods or services you enter into a contract with the supplier of goods and services. This is called a consumer contract. Specifically a consumer is a person who is buying a service or a product from someone whose normal business it is to sell that product or service.
Contracts may be written or oral. It is easier to know precisely what the terms are in a written contract but an oral contract is also enforceable in law. Consumer contracts may differ and there are no hard and fast rules governing what terms should be in a consumer contract.
Contracts are made up of terms and there are different types of terms in consumer contracts. Implied terms are not mentioned in a written or oral consumer contract but exist all the same. An example of an implied term might be that the product or service will last for a reasonable length of time taking the cost of the item or service into account. Mandatory terms are terms that by law have to be included in contracts – these are not common in consumer contracts. Core terms are terms that set out the main conditions of a contract. In a consumer contract, these core terms might include the price of the product or service. Neither core terms nor mandatory terms are covered by the EU Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1995.
These regulations take into account the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the contract. For example, whether the product or service was sold to the consumer in a fair and equitable manner.
The regulations do not however, apply to any term that has been individually negotiated in a contract between a consumer and a supplier of goods and services. They also do not cover contracts between individuals selling products or services outside the course of their normal business or between one trader and another. Other contracts relating to employment, succession rights, family law or the formation of companies or partnerships are not covered by the regulations.
What is meant by an unfair term?
As explained above, an unfair term in a consumer contract is a term that can cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer. There are three main categories that unfair terms may fall into.
Terms that give the supplier of goods or services the right to change the terms of the contract.
Terms that limit the liability of the supplier of goods and services. For example no liability for death or personal injury arising out of an act or an omission by the supplier of goods or services.
Terms that put an unfair burden on the consumer. For example a term states that a deposit will be kept by the supplier of goods or services if the consumer cancels the contract but does not include a term saying that the supplier of goods or services will pay compensation if it does not fulfil its commitments.
This list is not exhaustive. Terms that fit into one of the above categories may be fair and equally a term may be deemed to be unfair which does not fit into one of the above categories.
Unfair terms violate the principle of good faith. If you enter a contract in good faith it means that your intentions are honest. The principle of good faith could be violated by, for example, inserting a term in the small print of the contract agreement where the consumer cannot see it easily.
In the case of written contracts, all terms must be written in plain, understandable language. If there is a doubt about the meaning of a term, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer will prevail. If a term in the contract is found to be unfair, the remainder of the contract may still be legally binding on the consumer and the supplier of goods or services. This means that while one term or condition of the contract may be illegal, the remainder of the contract remains in force.

PUBLIC ORDER LAW
The law on public order offences in Ireland is mainly set down in the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994. This legislation deals with the behaviour of people in public places in Ireland and provides for various controls to be exercised at public events. The main purpose of the Act was as follows:
To update the law in relation to public order offences
To create specific offences with regard to racketeering and demanding money with menaces;
To deal with crowd control at public events; and
To deal with miscellaneous (various) matters including a new offence prohibiting the advertising of brothels and prostitution.
For the purposes of the law in Ireland, a ‘public place’ includes roads, public parks or recreational areas, cemeteries, churchyards, trains, buses and other public transport vehicles.
In the case of most of the offences under this Act, if a Garda suspects you of being involved, you are obliged to give your name and address if asked. In fact, it is an offence if you fail to do so. You may be arrested without warrant if you fail to give your name and address. You are liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €1,000 for that offence. You may be arrested without warrant if the Garda suspects you of having committed one of these offences.
The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2003 provides that, if you are convicted of certain offences under the 1994 Act, you may be excluded from a premises for up to a year. This is in addition to the penalty under the 1994 Act.

---

IF YOUR VEHICLE IS CLAMPED THE FOLLOWING APPLIES

Wilful obstruction
Under Section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 anyone without legal authority or reasonable excuse,
NO CONTRACT NO CONCENT:D
wilfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place shall be guilty of an offence. The penalty for this offence is €400.
This section was created in order to protect the constitutional rights of the individual to pass and re-pass on a public highway. While the Gardai have no power of arrest under this Section they can invoke the powers of Section 7 of the Act and direct any person to desist from the obstruction in question. Failure to comply with that direction is an offence.
Entering a building, etc, with intent to commit an offence
Section 11 of the 1994 Act makes it an offence for anyone to enter (i.e., trespass) a building or the vicinity of a building with the intention of committing an offence and/or interfering with property.
For example, you need not have entered a building to commit an offence under this section. By being on the property (i.e. in the back garden or the driveway of a house) this will be enough to bring a person within the definition of this section. It will be a matter for the prosecution in any proceedings to prove that the accused person was present in the building or on the property with the intention of committing an offence or with intent to interfere with any property. Those found guilty of this offence will be liable to a fine not exceeding €2,500 or to a maximum term in prison of 6 months or to both

---

IF THE COMPANY SAYS THE CLAMP WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL YOU HAVE PAID OUR PENALTY THEN THE FOLLOWING APPLIES,

Blackmail, extortion and demanding money with menaces
Section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 creates a new version of the blackmail and extortion offences which were previously contained in the Larceny Act, 1916 which have now been repealed. If a person makes an unwarranted demand with menaces for the purpose of making a gain for themselves or another or with the intention to cause a loss to another they will be guilty of this offence. The exception to this offence is that if the person making the demand with menaces believes that:-
He has reasonable grounds for making the demand,
NO CONTRACT NO CONCENT:D
and
The use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
While there is no definition in the Act of “menaces” the meaning of the word was defined in case-law under the Old Larceny Act, 1916. In a case called Thorne–v-Motor Trade Association (1937) the court stated that:-
“the word menace is to be liberally construed, and not as limited to threats of violence but as to include threats of any action detrimental to or unpleasant to the person addressed”.
Therefore the definition of menace would include threats to post on the internet details of a persons sexual life or threats to publish explicit photographs of a person. Neither of these actions could be said to be a proper way of enforcing what would otherwise be a legitimate demand for the payment of a debt. If a person is convicted of this offence the maximum punishment is an unlimited fine and or a term of imprisonment of up to 14 years.

If on the other hand you are clamped on gated private property in that can not be accessed accidently then you may disregard the preceding info.

NO CONTRACT NO CONCENT:D

Our man in Havana

Arthur V Anker and Vine V LB Waltham Forest are 2 leading authorities on clamping.

albeit

Thank you for posting this. I remember years back I used to be very afraid of my bicycle getting clamped.

It must be very frustrating having your car clamped, much worse than having it removed (as they do with bicycles as I have now, to my relief, figured out), sort of like having a cigarette but no lighter.

quickdraw2

A public space refers to an area or place that is open and accessible to all citizens, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level. One of the earliest examples of public spaces are commons. ...


Any and all streets, boulevards, avenues, lanes, alleys or other public ways, and any and all public parks, squares, spaces, plazas, grounds and buildings.


means a publicly or privately owned place to which the public or substantial numbers or people have access;

quickdraw2

Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform.
Duress also encompasses the same harm, threats, or restraint exercised upon the affected individual's spouse, child, or parent.
Duress is distinguishable from Undue Influence, a concept employed in the law of wills, in that the latter term involves a wrongdoer who is a fiduciary, one who occupies a position of trust and confidence in regard to the testator, the creator of the will.
Duress also exists where a person is coerced by the wrongful conduct or threat of another to enter into a contract under circumstances that deprive the individual of his or her volition.

dermot_sheehan

In addition to the contract argument, clampers could argue they are entitled to distrain the goods as security for damages for trespass.

Not that I agree with this argument.

quickdraw2

A minor may always rescind a contract due to a minor's incompetency to make a contract.

quickdraw2

My main point is that any area that has unrestricted access to the public ia a PUBLIC AREA and vehicles cannot be legally clamped in those areas.

quickdraw2

On the basis that you can not be bound in contract to an illegal act,


"Wilful obstruction
Under Section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 anyone without legal authority or reasonable excuse, wilfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place shall be guilty of an offence. The penalty for this offence is €400.
This section was created in order to protect the constitutional rights of the individual to pass and re-pass on a public highway. While the Gardai have no power of arrest under this Section they can invoke the powers of Section 7 of the Act and direct any person to desist from the obstruction in question. Failure to comply with that direction is an offence.
Entering a building, etc, with intent to commit an offence
Section 11 of the 1994 Act makes it an offence for anyone to enter (i.e., trespass) a building or the vicinity of a building with the intention of committing an offence and/or interfering with property.
For example, you need not have entered a building to commit an offence under this section. By being on the property (i.e. in the back garden or the driveway of a house) this will be enough to bring a person within the definition of this section. It will be a matter for the prosecution in any proceedings to prove that the accused person was present in the building or on the property with the intention of committing an offence or with intent to interfere with any property. Those found guilty of this offence will be liable to a fine not exceeding €2,500 or to a maximum term in prison of 6 months or to both"

ANY ATTEMPT TO BIND YOU TO THE CONTRACT IS THEREFORE VOID.

quickdraw2

IN A PUBLIC AREA

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994

While the Gardai have no power of arrest under this Section they can invoke the powers of Section 7 of the Act and direct any person to desist from the obstruction in question. Failure to comply with that direction is an offence.

darragh666

If your car is clamped and you need to pay a fee to remove it, can that be considered a contract?

Could the fee be seen as consideration in a 'transaction/contract' or is it the remedy for expenses incurred?

Stercus Accidit

If I understand, clamping the car is wilful obstruction, an illegal act, so the contract is void, and coercing you to pay is extortion, am I right to interpret the above as such?

quickdraw2

The existance of a contract is implied based on the premise that you have seen, read and by your presence have agreed to the terms displayed on the Sign / Notice.

The contract (implied) is, "IN A PUBLIC PLACE" Void based on the fact that a contract may not be bound to commit an illegal act.

Wilful obstruction
Under Section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994

quickdraw2

Thus ,
The clamper having clamped your vehicle (in a public space)
has commited an offence, and should therefore be liable to the penalty set down.

i.e. The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2003 provides that, if you are convicted of certain offences under the 1994 Act, you may be excluded from a premises for up to a year. This is in addition to the penalty under the 1994 Act.

no clamping for a while:)

in addition to the The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2003,
the demand for money to unclamp your vehicle
invokes the following,
Section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 creates a new version of the blackmail and extortion offences which were previously contained in the Larceny Act, 1916 which have now been repealed. If a person makes an unwarranted demand with menaces for the purpose of making a gain for themselves or another or with the intention to cause a loss to another they will be guilty of this offence.

Solicitors, anyone willing to take a test case all the way through the system ? ,

cormie

My legal language understanding isn't the best, any chance you could dumb all the above down a bit into a bite size segment outlining the main laws and legislation please and what they mean and to put them in simple terms?

cson

In terms of removing the clamp onseself it comes under the umbrella of criminal damage as far as I'm aware. They [Clampers] must not damage your car in attaching the clamp whilst you if taking it off [plenty of educational videos about this on youtube ] must not damage it either.

quickdraw2

Receipt issued by the clamper

Did not have the Company name or address
Did not have the VAT number

a cheap receipt juplicate book,

certainly a lot less than required for VAT purposes.

also did not have a description of the service provided
An official complaint to the revenue commisioners may
cause the clamper company to be "revenue audited"

____________________________________________________

Road Traffic act , Intefering with Vehicle, is Illegal.

I will be reading this soon to access the situation and will advise.

MagicSean

What clamping are you talking about? A public place is surely covered under local bye-laws and private clampers work on the basis of a contract which you agree to by parking in an area with signs indicating you will be clamped if you dont comply with certain conditions.

Our man in Havana

Someone has been down the headshop me thinks.

MagicSean

And been clamped?

quickdraw2

in my previous posts in this thread I failed to point out
that

"Wilful obstruction"

and

"Section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 creates a new version of the blackmail and extortion offences"

this only applies to private clamping in public areas,
it does not apply to council clampers in public areas

quickdraw2

I copied and pasted this from another thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65098849


"I was parked in a car park in a business park and my car was clamped by NCPS. The contravention was being parked in an Allocated Space, there were no markings on the space I took but there was a clamping sign near by.

Here are the steps I took to get off the clamp charge.

1. Paid for the fine over the phone with my MasterCard.
2. Rang MasterCard Customer Services to request a chargeback to be issued on the transaction. They were not able to do this so I was told to contact MasterCard Disputes via post. I persisted with customer services requesting to speak to someone in MC disputes on the phone. I was told someone from MC disputes would call me back.
3. Sent a message to NCPS web appeals site stating I have issued a charge back on the transaction because i was clamped in error.
4. MC disputes contacted me, I tell them that I wish to issue a chargeback on the transaction, my reasons are I was forced to enter a contract with NCPS without my permission and I had to pay NCPS under duress (they would keep my car if I didn't).
5. I have been fully refunded the fine amount on my MasterCard today.

I will keep you posted if NCPS pursue this further. "

quickdraw2

I have a sign in my window that says

"Clamps are placed on this vehicle at their owners risk. They will be removed forcibly and the condition of the clamps cannot be guaranteed."

I have an angle grinder in the boot. Ive taken clamps off a few times and have had calls about damaging the clampers property from the cops. I just tell them about the sign and that if the clampers want to take me to court - make my day.
Never hear a word again.


but didnt you read the sign:D:D

quickdraw2

167
167.—(1) Every person who, without the consent of the owner or the person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle and without other lawful authority or reasonable cause interferes or attempts to interfere in any way with the mechanism of such vehicle while it is stationary in a public place or gets on or into or attempts to get on or into such vehicle while it is so stationary shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

an old law 1933

still on the statute books.#

"interference with mechanism"
prevents you driving away

"without the consent"
= I do not consent to your clamping of my vehicle.


in a "public place" precludes the phrase,
"without other lawful authority or reasonable cause"

"lawful authority "
may include
city , town or county council. but not private clamper in public space.

MagicSean

You are confusing public place with public property. Under the road traffic act a public place can include a private car park. By entering a private car park which is signposted as having clamping in operation you are consenting to being clamped if you do not pay.

Our man in Havana

What if you can't read? Or indeed don't understand English?

The sign alone is not enough, the clamper has to prove that the victim:
1. Saw the sign, 2. Read the sign, and 3. Consented to the conditions.

Read Vine v LB Waltham Forest.

Jo King

quickdraw2 wrote: »

167
167.—(1)
an old law 1933

still on the statute books.#

Road Traffic Act 1961.
FIRST SCHEDULE

ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

Session and Chapter or Number and Year.
Short title

Extent of Repeal

1 & 2 Geo. V., c. 45. Public Roads (Ireland) Act, 1911. The whole Act.
No. 11 of 1933. Road Traffic Act, 1933 . The whole Act


Still on the statute books my a**

MagicSean

Haddockman wrote: »

What if you can't read? Or indeed don't understand English?

The sign alone is not enough, the clamper has to prove that the victim:
1. Saw the sign, 2. Read the sign, and 3. Consented to the conditions.

Read Vine v LB Waltham Forest.

Can you get a drivers licence if you cant read?

Our man in Havana

You can.

MagicSean

Haddockman wrote: »

You can.

How do you pass the theory test or read road signs?

Our man in Havana

I know of one gentleman who is totally illiterate and he is driving years and has a full licence. He has his children complete his driving licence forms and he makes his mark. No one has ever tried to stop him driving.

MagicSean

It sounds like he is just getting away with it.

Our man in Havana

40 years and counting.

Bebop

I posted this on a nearby thread;

Yesterday Aug 3rd, Liffey Valley SC
My wife parked in a disabled bay, she had our 2 disabled sons and was clearly displaying the parking permit, their car was clamped and a large sticker applied to drivers window, when she called the clamping company they said that the permit was expired so they were fully justified in clamping the vehicle and charging €100 for release
Tuesday after the bank holiday was a slow day at Liffey Valley with plenty of disabled spaces available, the fact that our permit was due for renewal does not render it expired like a tax disc,
The clampers checked with the Irish Wheelchair Association after the event who confirmed our permit was genuine but they did not refund the fee

What are my options? can I complain to anybody or are the clampers a law unto themselves?

might make a good test case?

Our man in Havana

You will have to sue them in the district court.

quickdraw2

In view of the fact that the intention to introduce regulation of the clamping Racket in Ireland has been announced, i suggest that this thread be revived, for new discussion, and comments.

read thread from beginning, add your comments.

Would picking the lock of a clamp be considered fair game, as you're not damaging the lock?

quickdraw2

Sure it would br fair game,
however the locks used on many clamps are Disk detainer type and very difficult, but not impossible to pick.

check "Disk detainer locks" on wiki

or youtube Disk detainer lock picking
or youtube lock bumping


or http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2049918/disc_detainer_lock_picking/

not easy

BrianD

Bebop wrote: »

I posted this on a nearby thread;

Yesterday Aug 3rd, Liffey Valley SC
My wife parked in a disabled bay, she had our 2 disabled sons and was clearly displaying the parking permit, their car was clamped and a large sticker applied to drivers window, when she called the clamping company they said that the permit was expired so they were fully justified in clamping the vehicle and charging €100 for release
Tuesday after the bank holiday was a slow day at Liffey Valley with plenty of disabled spaces available, the fact that our permit was due for renewal does not render it expired like a tax disc,
The clampers checked with the Irish Wheelchair Association after the event who confirmed our permit was genuine but they did not refund the fee

What are my options? can I complain to anybody or are the clampers a law unto themselves?

might make a good test case?

Suggest you write again to the clamping company and also to the shopping centre. I'm sure that Liffey Valley management want the parking regulations enforced by not that harshly.

blackwhite

Was doing some research onto this, as GF's car was clamped whilst parked in my apartment's car park.
My reading of the 1961 Road Traffic Act is that private clamping is illegal unless the private company has been authorised by the state/local authority.
There's provision allowing for "interference" with the car if it's blocking an entrance/exit/right of way, but it only seems to extend doing what's necessary to move it out of the way, not to detain the vehicle.

Anyone know if there's anything in legislation which negates this?

113.—(1) A person shall not, without lawful authority or reasonable cause, interfere or attempt to interfere with the mechanism of a mechanically propelled vehicle while it is stationary in a public place, or get on or into or attempt to get on or into the vehicle while it is so stationary.

(4) This section shall not apply to a person taking, in relation to a mechanically propelled vehicle which is obstructing his lawful ingress or egress to or from any place, such steps as are reasonably necessary to move the vehicle by human propulsion for a distance sufficient to terminate the obstruction.

Marcusm

blackwhite wrote: »

Was doing some research onto this, as GF's car was clamped whilst parked in my apartment's car park.
My reading of the 1961 Road Traffic Act is that private clamping is illegal unless the private company has been authorised by the state/local authority.
There's provision allowing for "interference" with the car if it's blocking an entrance/exit/right of way, but it only seems to extend doing what's necessary to move it out of the way, not to detain the vehicle.

Anyone know if there's anything in legislation which negates this?

If you read back through the threads you'll see that "public place" are the magic words - unlikely in most cases to apply to apartment car parks but there are divergent views and ultimately it will depend on the facts of each case.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

If you read back through the threads you'll see that "public place" are the magic words - unlikely in most cases to apply to apartment car parks but there are divergent views and ultimately it will depend on the facts of each case.

RTA 1961 Section 3
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0003.html

“public place” means any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;

Going on that, clamping on private property, is illegal...

MagicSean

blackwhite wrote: »

Was doing some research onto this, as GF's car was clamped whilst parked in my apartment's car park.
My reading of the 1961 Road Traffic Act is that private clamping is illegal unless the private company has been authorised by the state/local authority.
There's provision allowing for "interference" with the car if it's blocking an entrance/exit/right of way, but it only seems to extend doing what's necessary to move it out of the way, not to detain the vehicle.

Anyone know if there's anything in legislation which negates this?

There's nothing in law which allows for private clamping, particularly in a place which is open to the public. Until one of the companies is prosecuted or sued or until new legislation is brought in then it will remain a complete grey area in the law. It's disgraceful that legislation hasn't been brought in before now.

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

RTA 1961 Section 3
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0003.html



Going on that, clamping on private property, is illegal...

Not sure how you come to that conclusion.

Clamping cars in a public place is subject to regulation. The fact that there is no black letter law governing clamping in any other place does not mean that it is unlawful, per se. (There is likewise no law proscribing the driving of a car ith a pink butterfly painted on the side of it.)

The question is whether the clamping is in pursuance of an exercise of legitimate rights by the owner of any non public place where the car is parked. The clamping might be regarded by a judge a being an appropriate action to avoid abuse of parking faciiities provided or squatting. It might be decided by a judge that adequate signage is required etc. However, i would be better if the houses of the Oireachtas applied some time to this matter rather than leaving it to the courts - a route which is only likely to be followed if someone does not pay the fee and seeks relief for the return of the property.

Our man in Havana

There is already case law on private clamping.

Judge ruled clamping illegal at WIT 18/1/2007
Judge William Harnett ruled at Waterford district court last week that WIT has no authority to clamp the Vehicles of people who park illegally at its cork road campus.

The case originated when a clamp was removed from a car by its owner on January 5th last year. The judge ruled that the owner was entitled to remove something that was stuck to his car by whatever means and if it damages his car, he was entitled to claim damages.

While there where notices up in the car park informing motorists that clamping was in operation, Judge Harnett ruled that there were no laws to support that notice before dismissing the case.

WITSU expects that WIT will seek legal clarification on this matter and that clamping will continue for now. WITSU welcomes the ruling that clamping is illegal, however does not encourage motorists to park in dangerous or unhelpful positions.

MagicSean

Our man in Havana wrote: »

There is already case law on private clamping.

Very interesting. Any other cases in the area?

Our man in Havana

None that have been reported.

The clampers are not too keen on any of these cases getting near a court as it would destroy their business model overnight. They would rather settle the very few cases that might be brought than have the whole house of cards fall down.

Marcusm

Our man in Havana wrote: »

There is already case law on private clamping.

True; that is reported on here regularly but unfortunatley it's not clear what he was being asked to decide on. Was it a criminal damage case against a student? Otherwise, hard to see how it was in the District Court - it wouldn't have jurisdiction to issue orders for a clamp to be removed. easy to see how a judge would kick out a criminal damage charge against a student who cut a clamp and make comments like this. It does not affect the legality of clamping AFAIK.

In any event DC decisions are not formally reported and are not even binding on other district judges.

BrianD

quickdraw2 wrote: »

In view of the fact that the intention to introduce regulation of the clamping Racket in Ireland has been announced, i suggest that this thread be revived, for new discussion, and comments.

read thread from beginning, add your comments.

What is this racket that you speak of?

Are you referring to clamping on private property e.g. in the grounds of an apartment block or on a public street e.g. any street in the Dublin city Council area?

CorChil

quickdraw2 wrote: »

My main point is that any area that has unrestricted access to the public ia a PUBLIC AREA and vehicles cannot be legally clamped in those areas.

What about staff parking on a University Campus? There is no gates, its wouldn't block any entrance/exit.

The car lot says staff parking between 8am and 5:30pm and permit must be displayed. Also there is a sign on entry to campus saying clamping being used on Campus.

Would it be legal to remove the clamp if the car was parked in the staff lot?

Victor

CorChil wrote: »

Would it be legal to remove the clamp if the car was parked in the staff lot?

It may have college disciplinary impacts.