car clamped in visitor space, NCPS

Lord Nikon

Woke up this morning to find the car clamped in a visitor space. I dont live there but my other half does, and i have been parking there for the last 4 months with no issues at all.

Parking permits are needed for residents of appartments, no way to get one unless you do live there.

Can they clamp me in a visitor spot?

Lord Nikon

John_Mc

They did the exact same thing to me as well. Head on down to your local equipment hire place and rent out a heavy duty bolt cutters. It might be a bit difficult if there's only yourself, but with 2 of us we had the clamp off in 2 minutes. Renting the bolt cutters only cost €5.

Don't leave the clamp behind you as that's the proof they need. Once it's in your car there's S.F.A they can do about it. I never heard from the Gardai or from NCPS.

P.S You should obviously tell them you'll remove it if they don't. Explain that you were parked there with permission and that you were a guest of your other half. It won't do anything but at least you can say you tried!

djimi

What consitutes visitor parking? There is nothing on that sign to indicate what they mean. Ring them up and ask them to clarify, for all the good it will do you...

There is also a 4 page thread not too far from this one about clampers...

Anan1

djimi wrote: »

What consitutes visitor parking? There is nothing on that sign to indicate what they mean. Ring them up and ask them to clarify

That'd be my thinking too. Unless there are visitor parking permits?

Lord Nikon

I rang them and they said they wont release without my payment. I said it is visitor parking, and she said their is details on the sign about visitor parking permission which there clearly isnt.

Im clearly a visitor using a visitor space. If there was details about getting a visitor pass i would have got it. Its up to them to clearly signpost all details about parking.

listermint

neuromancer wrote: »

I rang them and they said they wont release without my payment. I said it is visitor parking, and she said their is details on the sign about visitor parking permission which there clearly isnt.

Im clearly a visitor using a visitor space. If there was details about getting a visitor pass i would have got it. Its up to them to clearly signpost all details about parking.

Cut it off! and no im not joking. Rent the cutters cut it off and return the clamp to their office saying you found it.

dont dare give them the satisfaction.

Anan1

neuromancer wrote: »

I rang them and they said they wont release without my payment. I said it is visitor parking, and she said their is details on the sign about visitor parking permission which there clearly isnt.

Im clearly a visitor using a visitor space. If there was details about getting a visitor pass i would have got it. Its up to them to clearly signpost all details about parking.

What did she say when you told her that there is no explanation as to what constitutes visitor parking on the sign? Did you offer to email her your pic of the sign to prove this?

djimi

Id fight this if it were me. There is nothing on that sign to indicate what consitutes visitor parking, or how long you are permitted to park there. By the sounds of it you are a visitor so if you cant use the space then who can?

Anan1

John_Mc wrote: »

They did the exact same thing to me as well. Head on down to your local equipment hire place and rent out a heavy duty bolt cutters.

listermint wrote: »

Cut it off! and no im not joking. Rent the cutters cut it off and return the clamp to their office saying you found it.

dont dare give them the satisfaction.

Easy on there - think first, then act. It might yet be possible to have them remove the clamp FOC.

djimi

listermint wrote: »

Cut it off! and no im not joking. Rent the cutters cut it off and return the clamp to their office saying you found it.

dont dare give them the satisfaction.

If you damage the clamp then you go from being in the right to being in the wrong.

Dermo

The same company run the parking in my estate. On the signs they have a number you call and leave a message saying your registration, how long you will be parking and which car park.

Those signs in the photos are completely unhelpful.

listermint

Anan1 wrote: »

Easy on there - think first, then act. It might yet be possible to have them remove the clamp FOC.

He has thought, he phoned them, Ive been down this road.

Those call centres are just reading from a response list. They never have power to get the guy to remove it. You'd have to go up the chain to get anywhere with these people.

Best case you spend hours on the phone banging your head off a wall.
Worst cast you gain satisfaction from the fact that you can remove it
yourself. He's not in the wrong here. but he will have to get on his knees
to explain himself?

seamus

There are no conditions attached to the parking spot, therefore no implied acceptance of terms & therefore no contract. It clearly says "Visitor parking" and you are a visitor.

Ring them and tell them to remove the clamp or you'll be ringing the Gardai to complain that they have committed an offence under section 167 of the Road Traffic Act.

Ring the Gardai if they then refuse to remove the clamp.

Pkiernan

To the OP:

I would edit the photos you posted - your number plate is visible.

Were this to happen to me, I would give serious consideration to cutting the lock off, or getting a friend to do it for me while I was witnessed being somewhere else.

Anan1

listermint wrote: »

He has thought, he phoned them, Ive been down this road.

Those call centres are just reading from a response list. They never have power to get the guy to remove it. You'd have to go up the chain to get anywhere with these people.

Best case you spend hours on the phone banging your head off a wall.
Worst cast you gain satisfaction from the fact that you can remove it
yourself. He's not in the wrong here. but he will have to get on his knees
to explain himself?

Removing it yourself is a PITA for most people, i'd treat it as a last resort. Given what the OP has told us so far, i'd be fairly confident of having them remove the clamp FOC, which is clearly the ideal outcome. These people probably just need to be spoken to in the correct manner. I don't know about anyone else, but my life's too short to be p1ssing around with rented power tools in an underground car park.

Anan1

Dermo wrote: »

The same company run the parking in my estate. On the signs they have a number you call and leave a message saying your registration, how long you will be parking and which car park.

Those signs in the photos are completely unhelpful.

OP - are you sure there were no other signs of the kind Dermo mentioned?

KamiKazi

They really are absolute scum, don't give them a cent.



Visitors parking: Correct, OP is a visitor.

Unauthorised or illegaly parked: Doesn't state how to get "authorised" or what's considered legal or illegal parking.

Ring them up and demand for it to be taken off, if that doesn't work get the car towed, and the clamp will hopefully "fall" off

omega666

Anan1 wrote: »

Removing it yourself is a PITA for most people, i'd treat it as a last resort. Given what the OP has told us so far, i'd be fairly confident of having them remove the clamp FOC, which is clearly the ideal outcome. These people probably just need to be spoken to in the correct manner. I don't know about anyone else, but my life's too short to be p1ssing around with rented power tools in an underground car park.

has there been a case where the clampers have removed the clamp after
a reasonable explanation from the victim? i was under the impresssion that no matter the explanation you have to pay the fine straight away and then you can appeal at your lesiure (with a high chance seeing as they already have your money they dont give a damn)

it may take a bit more effort and time but just for the personal sadisfaction i
would cut it off.

Dermo

There is also the chance that there are special visitor permits. OP, have you seen any other cars in the Visitor's section and do they have permits? There could be info your landlord forgot to mention about using the visitor's parking.

I'm only asking all these questions because it seems really weird to have visitor's parking and have no way to distinguish visitors from parking spot stealers.

kravmaga

neuromancer wrote: »

Woke up this morning to find the car clamped in a visitor space. I dont live there but my other half does, and i have been parking there for the last 4 months with no issues at all.

Parking permits are needed for residents of appartments, no way to get one unless you do live there.

Can they clamp me in a visitor spot?

Why not contact the MD of NCPS directly on this.
Richard Flood is his name.

nightster1

neuromancer wrote: »

best to cut if off and take it away, they tried the same to me in shearwater, Kinsale!!!!!

listermint

Anan1 wrote: »

Removing it yourself is a PITA for most people, i'd treat it as a last resort. Given what the OP has told us so far, i'd be fairly confident of having them remove the clamp FOC, which is clearly the ideal outcome. These people probably just need to be spoken to in the correct manner. I don't know about anyone else, but my life's too short to be p1ssing around with rented power tools in an underground car park.

I would thoroughly agree, i would be the exemption rather than the rule with power tools. But life is also far too short to be spending your day on the phone to a bandit. Ive much more constructive things to do than explain myself to someone and have to pay for the call to do so.

seamus

Dermo wrote: »

There could be info your landlord forgot to mention about using the visitor's parking.

Any agreement between the landlord, tenant and management company is irrelevant. In order to secure payment for use of the facilities, it is the owner of the vehicle that they have to make the agreement with.

Failure of a tenant/landlord to inform a visitor of the procedure cannot result in the visitor having to pay any fines or fees. Unless the visitor has been clearly told what the arrangement is, then they are not liable for anything.

Anan1

listermint wrote: »

I would thoroughly agree, i would be the exemption rather than the rule with power tools. But life is also far too short to be spending your day on the phone to a bandit. Ive much more constructive things to do than explain myself to someone and have to pay for the call to do so.

It all depends on a couple of still unknown variables. If the car was wrongly clamped, and if the clampers, having been presented with clear evidence of this, still refused to remove the clamp, then i'd cut it off. A phone call to ascertain the above should take no more than a couple of minutes. It's often easier to walk around a wall than to climb over it.

kildare.17hmr

Got a friend who is a mechanic? very easy to remove if you know what your doin, jack it up and have a look, you will notice the chain going through the wishbone, remove the bolts and it slides right out with no damage to the car or the clamp then return it to them or leave it where they can see it next time they pop round:D dont try it yourself tho get a mechanic, even if it costs ya a few quid better off not givin it to them

I fcukin hate clampers

Tefral

Deflate your tyre fully which will allow you access to the wheel nuts, jack up the car, take the wheel off with the clamp, take clamp off wheel and put on your spare tyre and pump up your tyre at the local garage, call the clamped and stick the thing around his neck..:mad:

kildare.17hmr

cronin_j wrote: »

Deflate your tyre fully which will allow you access to the wheel nuts, jack up the car, take the wheel off with the clamp, take clamp off wheel and put on your spare tyre and pump up your tyre at the local garage, call the clamped and stick the thing around his neck..:mad:

they dont use them sort e clamps anymore, ya can jus drive off and the fall apart! there mostly chains now that go round the back of the hub and thru the wishbone, altho some maybe using the older ones i dont think NCPS are im afraid!
agree with the neck idea tho:D

cruizer101

Just a thought OP might one of the other residents ave reported you.

I'm just guessing this seem as though there is no conditions of what constitutes a vistor

bigjohnny80

Sounds like someone reported you rather than a random spot check.

Our place have started clamping the 'regular' visitors.

Drummerboy08

kildare.17hmr

well OP did how did ya get on?? i assume your car is not still clamped?

Mr. Presentable

Parking there for 4 months, eh.

What constitutes a visitor? For me a visitor is someone who calls in once in a while for a very short time - not someone who is staying over most nights. The conditions are probably in the apartment lease agreement. I suspect because you are there so much another resident figures you live there (or as good as).

djimi

nipplenuts wrote: »

Parking there for 4 months, eh.

What constitutes a visitor? For me a visitor is someone who calls in once in a while for a very short time - not someone who is staying over most nights. The conditions are probably in the apartment lease agreement. I suspect because you are there so much another resident figures you live there (or as good as).

And where on the sign does it say any of this? Bear in mind that visitors do not have access to the apartment lease agreement.

If a company is going to operate clamping then they have to be clear as to what is permitted and what is going to lead to your clamping (so that you can avoid doing it, which after all is the point of the clamping in the first place). Nowhere on the sign above does it clarify what consitutes a visitor, so they have no right to clamp him. He does not live there full time, so he is a visitor.

Dermo

djimi wrote: »

And where on the sign does it say any of this? Bear in mind that visitors do not have access to the apartment lease agreement.

If a company is going to operate clamping then they have to be clear as to what is permitted and what is going to lead to your clamping (so that you can avoid doing it, which after all is the point of the clamping in the first place). Nowhere on the sign above does it clarify what consitutes a visitor, so they have no right to clamp him. He does not live there full time, so he is a visitor.

if you are a visitor then surely you are visiting someone who lives there who should have the information about visitor parking

djimi

Dermo wrote: »

if you are a visitor then surely you are visiting someone who lives there who should have the information about visitor parking

Do you go around to all of your friends and ask to see their lease agreements to be sure that you are not in violation of terms of parking?

I take your point, and if there is something in the agreement then the OP or their partner would/should know about it, but my point still remains; if a clamping company is going to operate and put up signs then they should clearly state what is allowed and what is not allowed, ie, what sort of time frame visitors are allowed to park for, how frequently the may park etc. Visitors Only means nothing, as like I said the OP is a visitor, regardless of how frequently they visit or how long they stay.

Mr. Presentable

djimi wrote: »

And where on the sign does it say any of this? Bear in mind that visitors do not have access to the apartment lease agreement.

If a company is going to operate clamping then they have to be clear as to what is permitted and what is going to lead to your clamping (so that you can avoid doing it, which after all is the point of the clamping in the first place). Nowhere on the sign above does it clarify what consitutes a visitor, so they have no right to clamp him. He does not live there full time, so he is a visitor.

How long does he have to be there to stop being a visitor?

Visitors will be visiting someone who has a lease agreement! I don't know any more than you if there are conditions explicit anywhere in this case - I am postulating a likelihood. As are you.

Could there be an "acceptable usage" policy akin to what broadband operators use?

Out of curiosity, how would you define a visitor to a dwelling?

mooman

Anan1 wrote: »

Removing it yourself is a PITA for most people, i'd treat it as a last resort. .

Having your car stuck in a car park until those pr1cks decide to let it out is a much bigger pain, the OP probably had work to go to and they go clamping his car when he shouldn't be. I'd advise hacking it off if you haven't already. There is a nice satisfied feeling afterwards too.

Dermo

djimi wrote: »

Do you go around to all of your friends and ask to see their lease agreements to be sure that you are not in violation of terms of parking?

I don't ask to see their agreement, but I do ask if I am allowed to park there and if they know what the rules are.

I agree with you that the sign is quite stupid and should have more information on it but the blame isn't solely on ncps. The op must share some of the blame for not investigating what constitutes a visitor. If his version of visitor (4 months parking) is shared by people living there, why would the residents even bother paying for their actual resident parking spot?

seamus

nipplenuts wrote: »

if a clamping company is going to operate and put up signs then they should clearly state what is allowed and what is not allowed, ie, what sort of time frame visitors are allowed to park for, how frequently the may park etc. Visitors Only means nothing, as like I said the OP is a visitor, regardless of how frequently they visit or how long they stay.

Yep, that's pretty much it. A visitor is someone who is not normally resident (or employed!) at that address. Simple as. Length of stay, frequency of stay is irrelevant if the person is resident somewhere else.

The whole thing is basic contract law.

In order for NCPS to impose any kind of fee on someone parking incorrectly a car park, there needs to exist a contract between NCPS and the person who parked the vehicle. This is an agreement that, "If you do not park correctly, NCPS will impose a fee which you must pay." If the person parking the vehicle agrees to this, then NCPS are entirely entitled to charge a reasonable fee. If the person has not agreed to this, NCPS have no basis on which to impose a fee.

There are obvious requirements here:
1. Nobody can enter into a contract on someone else's behalf. The agreement *must* be between the person parking the vehicle and NCPS. House rules, management company flyers, landlord rules, etc are irrelevant. If the person parking the vehicle has not entered into the agreement, then there is no agreement.

2. An agreement can be implicitly accepted, it not does require signatures or verbal confirmation. If there are signs clearly displayed in the estate detailing what constitutes correct parking and the fees to be imposed for incorrect parking, then it can be taken for granted that a person who uses the car park, has agreed to those conditions and has formed a contract with NCPS. They can choose to enter into the agreement, by not parking in the estate.
The contract is only as watertight as the signs are clear - any ambiguity favours the person being fined, not the company - you cannot agree to a contract if the conditions of that contract were not made clear to you.
So if it's says "Visitors Only", with no further information, then anyone who is not resident there and is visiting the estate (not necessarily any person there) for a purpose, is entitled to park there for the entire length of time that they are visiting.
Again, no signs, insufficiently displayed signs or unclear signs* and there is no contract and no basis on which to impose a fee on anyone.

The op must share some of the blame for not investigating what constitutes a visitor.

No he mustn't. He's not resident there, therefore he's a visitor. He has no obligation to check any further than that - NCPS cannot redefine "visitor" to suit their own ends unless they clearly display what constitutes a visitor on the sign.


*I've seen signs which say, "Clamping in operation, €120 release fee" and nothing more. Such signs are meaningless and do not give the company any right to impose a €120 fee, because there are no conditions to agree to, therefore no agreement.

djimi

nipplenuts wrote: »

How long does he have to be there to stop being a visitor?

Visitors will be visiting someone who has a lease agreement! I don't know any more than you if there are conditions explicit anywhere in this case - I am postulating a likelihood. As are you.

Could there be an "acceptable usage" policy akin to what broadband operators use?

Out of curiosity, how would you define a visitor to a dwelling?

Visitors are someone who doesnt live there, ie, they are visiting! Doesnt matter if they spend 8 hours a day there 7 days a week, its not their primary abode therefore they are visitors. There is nothing on the sign to say any differently to that, so surely its up to NCPS to specify what they consider to be a visitor if it differs from the normal definition?

I agree tho, we are only assuming all of this. For all we know there is a large sign on the door of the apartment building saying maximum 2 hours for visitors or something.

Dermo

seamus wrote: »

No he mustn't. He's not resident there, therefore he's a visitor. He has no obligation to check any further than that - NCPS cannot redefine "visitor" to suit their own ends unless they clearly display what constitutes a visitor on the sign.

I know that's the legal truth, but I'm talking about plain old common sense. We all know how bad clampers are in this country, take some extra precaution and make sure you won't get clamped instead of hoping that it won't happen

djimi

Dermo wrote: »

I don't ask to see their agreement, but I do ask if I am allowed to park there and if they know what the rules are.

I agree with you that the sign is quite stupid and should have more information on it but the blame isn't solely on ncps. The op must share some of the blame for not investigating what constitutes a visitor. If his version of visitor (4 months parking) is shared by people living there, why would the residents even bother paying for their actual resident parking spot?

Because residents live there; visitors dont. He says hes been using it for 4 months, but for all we know its one night a week totaling 7 or 8 hours for 4 months, which hardly consitutes more than a visitor? I would only consider it beyond the realms of visitor if he spends 4-5 nights a week there and the car is parked there more or less constantly. Even then he could argue that he is just visiting as it is still ambiguous.

And I dont feel that there is any onus on the OP to find out what constitutes a visitor. NCPS are the ones regulating the car park, so it is up to them to clearly display their guidelines. Without specific guidlelines (which we are only assuming do not exist) then any non-resident is not in breach of the only guideline displayed, ie the "Visitor Parking Only" rule, as any non-resident is technically a visitor.

seamus

Dermo wrote: »

We all know how bad clampers are in this country, take some extra precaution and make sure you won't get clamped instead of hoping that it won't happen

The point is that he shouldn't have to hope that it won't happen. Common sense would dictate that if he's not doing anything wrong, then he won't clamped. It's clampers who aren't using common sense.
Private clampers have no authority over anyone - we shouldn't have to double and triple check ourselves to make sure that we don't fall foul of them. Private clampers should be checking themselves and giving the benefit of the doubt where one exists - after all, they are the ones breaking the law when they apply a clamp.

Anan1

Dermo wrote: »

I know that's the legal truth, but I'm talking about plain old common sense. We all know how bad clampers are in this country, take some extra precaution and make sure you won't get clamped instead of hoping that it won't happen

If we're going to forget the legal angle for a minute then I wonder how many apartments there are per visitor space? Is it possible that the OP is regularly inconveniencing other residents through overuse of a visitor space?

Dermo

seamus wrote: »

The point is that he shouldn't have to hope that it won't happen. Common sense would dictate that if he's not doing anything wrong, then he won't clamped. It's clampers who aren't using common sense.
Private clampers have no authority over anyone - we shouldn't have to double and triple check ourselves to make sure that we don't fall foul of them. Private clampers should be checking themselves and giving the benefit of the doubt where one exists - after all, they are the ones breaking the law when they apply a clamp.

sadly, what should happen and what does happen are two completely different things

kippy

It would be interesting to see what is in the lease or management company contract in relation to visitor parking.
The OPs partner should be aware of these clauses and if he has parked outside of the stated clauses in these documents it is the OP's partner who is at fault for not advising him of the visitor parking restrictions.

I would suggest, as others have, that some has reported the OP for parking outside of these restrictions.

I dont completely agree with having signage on a wall which outlines totally the visitor "clauses". This is very rarely done as far as I am concerned. If one were to signpost every single law/stipulation in relation to driving/parking one would have a lot of sign posts and if said laws/regulations were to change one would have massive expense/hassle in changing all the signs.
What usually happens is that regulations are written into a document and the leaseholder is aware of document. Since a visitor normally visits a leaseholder it is them who should advise their visitor of the restrictions in place.

Thankfully we have no clamping in operation here however we have clauses built into the leases about "fair useage" parking policy.........outlining exactly what happens cars which are parked in the same spot without moving for more than 8 weeks and what the policy is in relation to trailers. All owners/leasholders are aware of this and one car has been towed away after breaking the first policy. (The owners had left the country never to return)

djimi

kippy wrote: »

It would be interesting to see what is in the lease or management company contract in relation to visitor parking.
The OPs partner should be aware of these clauses and if he has parked outside of the stated clauses in these documents it is the OP's partner who is at fault for not advising him of the visitor parking restrictions.

I would suggest, as others have, that some has reported the OP for parking outside of these restrictions.

I dont completely agree with having signage on a wall which outlines totally the visitor "clauses". This is very rarely done as far as I am concerned. If one were to signpost every single law/stipulation in relation to driving/parking one would have a lot of sign posts and if said laws/regulations were to change one would have massive expense/hassle in changing all the signs.
What usually happens is that regulations are written into a document and the leaseholder is aware of document. Since a visitor normally visits a leaseholder it is them who should advise their visitor of the restrictions in place.

Thankfully we have no clamping in operation here however we have clauses built into the leases about "fair useage" parking policy.........outlining exactly what happens cars which are parked in the same spot without moving for more than 8 weeks and what the policy is in relation to trailers. All owners/leasholders are aware of this and one car has been towed away after breaking the first policy. (The owners had left the country never to return)

The thing is tho if they are going to penalise people for parking, then they have to clearly display what you have to avoid doing in order to avoid getting a penalty. It doesnt have to be a work of art, a sign saying "Visitor Parking Only - 2 Hour Max Limit" or something would suffice and would make the whole thing a lot clearer.

Even if someone reported the OP, unless it is as Anan suggested and there are only a small number of visitor parking spaces which the OP abuses, then what grounds has any other resident to complain as the OP is still within the guidelines displayed (again assuming that there is nothing else in writing, be it on another sign or in a lease agreement to clarify further)?

I think without knowing more about what is in writing, what is in the tenants lease agreement, and what other signage there might be in the car park or building to clarify what consitutes a visitor we are all just speculating regarding this issue.

kippy

djimi wrote: »

I think without knowing more about what is in writing, what is in the tenants lease agreement, and what other signage there might be in the car park or building to clarify what consitutes a visitor we are all just speculating regarding this issue.

Completely agree. Most replies to posts on matters such as this are purely speculative. Without having access to all the information, which clearly none of us, so far, have we are just speculating on possibilities for the action being taken.
My points are in relation to signage and what can be displayed on signage.
As stated, we have no signage at all in relation to parking. Everything in relation to parking is held within the lease agreement, including the stipulations about towing cars/trailers/oversize vehicles.

For example in this case, "Visitor Parking" may be a term fully defined within the lease.
Those asking the OP to cut the clamp off have obviously no idea that the OP may be in the wrong.
As much as I dont like clamping, when used properly it is an effective tool and 90% of the time I have seen it used it was against people who had been in the "wrong" so to speak. Not saying that is the case here, just advising that it may be and cutting the clamp off may not be the best course of action.
Especially now as we have a public record of it, including the OPs reg number.........

Assuming that there is nothing in writing in relation to visitor parking is a very bad assumption to make......

seamus

kippy wrote: »

It would be interesting to see what is in the lease or management company contract in relation to visitor parking.

It's irrelevant what's in the lease, from the OP's point of view. As a visitor, he does not have access to the lease and therefore cannot be subject to any conditions of the lease in relation to parking.

The OP's partner cannot enter into an agreement on his behalf, and the OP cannot enter into an agreement unless the terms of that agreement are provided to him by the other party to the agreement. There is no obligation on the part of the OP's partner to provide this information because she is not a party to the contract - the agreement between the OP and NCPS.

There may be grounds to impose a fee on the OP's *partner* if one of her visitors does not park correctly according to the lease agreement, however you cannot impose a condition of the lease agreement on someone who is not party to that lease agreement.

So if it's not written on the wall - literally - then it doesn't constitute part of the agreement.

kildare.17hmr

Dermo wrote: »

I know that's the legal truth, but I'm talking about plain old common sense. We all know how bad clampers are in this country, take some extra precaution and make sure you won't get clamped instead of hoping that it won't happen

Its not up to him, if you go to visit someone and you see a sign "visitor parking" you park there end of story, if it does not say anything about time limits you forget about it as you have done your part and parked where visitors are told to!

Anan1 wrote: »

If we're going to forget the legal angle for a minute then I wonder how many apartments there are per visitor space? Is it possible that the OP is regularly inconveniencing other residents through overuse of a visitor space?

the reason i highlighted above is, altho i agree with you, even if a resident was inconvenienced by his parking he is still not breaking any rules(as far as we know)by parking in the visitor space

kippy wrote: »

Those asking the OP to cut the clamp off have obviously no idea that the OP may be in the wrong. Not saying that is the case here, just advising that it may be and cutting the clamp off may not be the best course of action.

Totally agree, cutting it off will only get you into trouble as you are damaging their property and iv heard of people getting fined for this but if, like i said in a previous post, you remove it without causing damage there is nothing they can do;)