Minister to introduce new laws on clamping

DrumSteve

http://www.thejournal.ie/varadkar-to-introduce-tough-new-laws-for-clampers-115375-May2011/

THE TRANSPORT MINISTER Leo Varadkar is to today to announce tough new laws on private clamping companies.

Presently, there is no legislation to prevent any individual from setting up a clamping company, including people with criminal records. The industry is extremely lucrative – with some companies making €5 million in a single year, the Irish Daily Mail reports.

In Dublin last year, a record number of cars were clamped (61,000) and 20 per cent more people lodged complaints about how they had been treated.

The new laws will tackle several factors related to the conduct of private clamping companies:

* Employees would need to be vetted
* Steep fines or jail terms of up to five years would be impose on for those operating without a licence
* A limit of €140 to unclamp a car would be imposed
* An independent appeals board would be appointed to deal with complaints

Former NCPS clamper Frank Gannon, of Donnycarney in Dublin, came out last year in condemnation of clamping procedures by private companies – pointing out that employees were paid minimum wage but earned a commission of €10 for each vehicle clamped. Gannon called the fines imposed on motorists “immoral”.

It is expected that the new legislation will be signed off on by Cabinet later this morning, and will take effect by the end of the year.

Interesting to see. This is one area that is sorely lacking legislation and this can only be a good thing.

Anan1

I'm all in favour of regulation of private clamping companies, but that article is thrown together. What proportion of the 61,000 cars clamped last year were clamped by private clampers? What's the absolute % of complaints? - ie 20% more than what? How does former NCPS clamper Frank Gannon know how other private clamping companies renumerate their staff? Do they all pay minimum wage and €10 commission per clamp? Might there be anything in Gannon's leaving NCPS that left him bitter? Let's see what happens.

Cookie_Monster

If they can sign off on it tomorrow why do we have to wait until the end of the year for it to be implemented?

Is this also going to legitimise private clamping rather than the grey mire it currently resides in?

DrumSteve

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

If they can sign off on it tomorrow why do we have to wait until the end of the year for it to be implemented?

Is this also going to legitimise private clamping rather than the grey mire it currently resides in?

I guess so however if private clamping is going to be there then at least there is a set of rules the companys will have to abide by.

bijapos

I'll wait to see the full legislation before judging on it, cynic that I am when it comes to politicians.

While any progress on clamping companies is to be welcomed, €140 max for clamping is outrageous either way, and I would like to see their idea of "vetting" as well. The "independent appeals board" sounds like another Quango, wonder where can I apply to get a job on it?

Lord Nikon

Appeals boards my ass. You still have to cough up your money for your car, and appeal to get your money back. Nothing changes.

I couldnt give a crap is serial killer works for the clamping company. The problem is your guilty until proven your innocent.

Anan1

neuromancer wrote: »

Appeals boards my ass. You still have to cough up your money for your car, and appeal to get your money back. Nothing changes.

I couldnt give a crap is serial killer works for the clamping company. The problem is your guilty until proven your innocent.

If you're not happy with the t&cs for use of a private car park then just don't use it.

DrumSteve

Anan1 wrote: »

If you're not happy with the t&cs for use of a private car park then just don't use it.

Sometimes, especially in apartments complexs, you may not have a choice.

Lord Nikon

Anan1 wrote: »

If you're not happy with the t&cs for use of a private car park then just don't use it.

How about these terms & conditions, my car clamped in a visitor spot. What justice is this???

DrumSteve

neuromancer wrote: »

How about these terms & conditions, my car clamped in a visitor spot. What justice is this???

Did you call them about this?

Lord Nikon

Damn sure I did, and nothing they would do about it. I still needed my car to drive to the airport, but I HAD to pay for the clamp to be removed and appeal it after. Appeal it to the company who clamped my car and extorted my money from me. They said those signs should have been taken down.

As if that was my problem?

Daegerty

Great, they are legitimising the industry. thats not a good thing

DrumSteve

neuromancer wrote: »

Damn sure I did, and nothing they would do about it. I still needed my car to drive to the airport, but I HAD to pay for the clamp to be removed and appeal it after. Appeal it to the company who clamped my car and extorted my money from me. They said those signs should have been taken down.

As if that was my problem?

You not get your money back?

Lord Nikon

Nope.

daingeanrob

independent review board should fine clampers when they clamp in the wrong and compensate legit parkers for their inconvenience. not just give you your own money back.

squod

Wouldn't trust Leo Varadkar to pick his own nose properly, nevermind picking laws to enable pirates to extort ransom from the citizen. While most civilisations are copping on to this fraud, college boy Varadkar is sending us back to the dark ages.

Caliden

I would hope that if this is passed that zones with clamping in operation now (e.g. private property) are reviewed before the licence is granted

Joe 90

bijapos wrote: »

I'll wait to see the full legislation before judging on it, cynic that I am when it comes to politicians.

While any progress on clamping companies is to be welcomed, €140 max for clamping is outrageous either way, and I would like to see their idea of "vetting" as well. The "independent appeals board" sounds like another Quango, wonder where can I apply to get a job on it?

The fee needs to be high enough to pay a suitable licence fee. Obvious.

jd

bijapos wrote: »

I'll wait to see the full legislation before judging on it, cynic that I am when it comes to politicians.

While any progress on clamping companies is to be welcomed, €140 max for clamping is outrageous either way,

We had problems with people using our car park while they went on holidays (we are close to the airport) If the declamp fee is too low it is hardly a deterrent.

KamiKazi

Anan1 wrote: »

If you're not happy with the t&cs for use of a private car park then just don't use it.

Oh look, it's this guy again.

Yawn.

EPM

KamiKazi wrote: »

Oh look, it's this guy again.

Yawn.

Funny, was just thinking the same about you.

Please don't post in this thread again.

Lord Nikon

Of course, if the clamp removal was 20 quid, the deterrent would be far less, and no one would miss 20 quid. What's annoying to everyone when it comes to clamping, is that it is a lot of money, and more so that the fee has to be now to get your car moving again.

90% of the time I have never more than 100 quid in my wallet. So even if I was clamped now, I wouldn't have the cash on me to pay up. Here lies the inconvenience for me to have to go get cash, and also the fact that I can't just give out 100 quid just like that for a clamp removal.

If I genuinely made a mistake, by no fault of my own, either illegal parking or the meter needed another euro, then okay I'm pissed off and I have to pay the declamp fee.

But if I was genuinely out of change to pay the meter, or the clampers made the mistake of clamping me for whatever reason, then this is highly unfair and anti-social. To demand money to release my car, and even though they are in the wrong, you are down 100 quid that could be needed to buy food for your family, pay rent/mortgage, or anything that's more importantly needed for you and not the clamping company.

A fine is much for socially acceptable, because you have a time frame to pay it, and it doesn't ruin your day.

Anan1

neuromancer wrote: »

Of course, if the clamp removal was 20 quid, the deterrent would be far less, and no one would miss 20 quid. What's annoying to everyone when it comes to clamping, is that it is a lot of money, and more so that the fee has to be now to get your car moving again.

90% of the time I have never more than 100 quid in my wallet. So even if I was clamped now, I wouldn't have the cash on me to pay up. Here lies the inconvenience for me to have to go get cash, and also the fact that I can't just give out 100 quid just like that for a clamp removal.

If I genuinely made a mistake, by no fault of my own, either illegal parking or the meter needed another euro, then okay I'm pissed off and I have to pay the declamp fee.

But if I was genuinely out of change to pay the meter, or the clampers made the mistake of clamping me for whatever reason, then this is highly unfair and anti-social. To demand money to release my car, and even though they are in the wrong, you are down 100 quid that could be needed to buy food for your family, pay rent/mortgage, or anything that's more importantly needed for you and not the clamping company.

A fine is much for socially acceptable, because you have a time frame to pay it, and it doesn't ruin your day.

The idea is to make it awkward for you, that's how deterrence works. I like the idea of compensating motorists who've been wrongly clamped, although a proper system of appeals will make clampers think twice about clamping in situations where it's likely to be a waste of their time. Finally, surely you don't honestly think that being 'genuinely out of change to pay the meter' is a valid excuse?:D

Lord Nikon

There have been times where I hadn't enough to pay the minimum, and times where I hadn't enough change to pay for the length of time I wanted to stay either. So, yes it's a valid excuse.

slavetothegrind

i was potentially clamped once not 60 seconds after i parked.
the parking ticket machine was up the road and around the corner.
i strolled up to it and paid for a ticket and upon rounding the corner to return to my van there's a clamper opening the rear door of his van beside mine.

i run up showing him my ticket and he says tough, non display not my problem.

I told him to go **** himself and got in and drove off before he could engage his clamp.

why should i have to pay 120 euro of a fine like a guilty person when i am not in the wrong?

then wait for a declamp and persue an appeals process?

cop on leo varadkar. if you want to dissuade illegal parking how hard is it to apply the fine to the vehicle via the licence plate number backed up with the photo evidence. link it to the tax so it has to be paid to renew the tax disc.
this crap of immobilisation and removal is rediculously expensive and unjust.

ninty9er

€140?? That's legitimising extortion!

It's €25 in UL, if you have a staff parking permit you'll get a phonecall to say your car is ilegally parked, you have 20 minutes to move it and if you're a student a note appears on the windscreen telling you that you will be clamped in 20 minutes if you do not move your car. That 20 minutes is generally 30-35 in practice.

It's supposed to be about changing habits, not screwing people!

Anan1

neuromancer wrote: »

There have been times where I hadn't enough to pay the minimum, and times where I hadn't enough change to pay for the length of time I wanted to stay either. So, yes it's a valid excuse.

You're kidding?? If you needed petrol and didn't have enough money would that give you a 'valid excuse' to just take it anyway? As with any other commodity, if you can't pay for it then you can't have it.

DrumSteve

Anan1 wrote: »

You're kidding?? If you needed petrol and didn't have enough money would that give you a 'valid excuse' to just take it anyway? As with any other commodity, if you can't pay for it then you can't have it.

Is parking a commodity now?

I personally don't believe clamping is a deterrant (if it is why are numbers clamped rising each year). It is merely a method of increasing revenue.

Also practically what is the point of clamping? If you were not meant to be there in the first place what is the point in keeping you there for an indeterminate amount of time?

VolvoMan

I got fined €80 in college by these thieves, who worded a sign in such a confusing way that it makes one think it is safe to park in the designated area. Students are regularly getting caught out by it and it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the clamping company.

It happened a few months ago and I'm finally appealing it as we speak.

Would you believe the cheeky fcukers even charge a €20 appeals fee?

jd

It works as a deterrent in our apartment complex. It was introduced reluctantly by the owners' committee, Now people usually park properly , don't use other residents' spaces, and there are more visitor spaces available for genuine visitors.

DrumSteve

VolvoMan wrote: »

I got fined €80 in college by these thieves, who worded a sign in such a confusing way that it makes one think it is safe to park in the designated area. Students are regularly getting caught out by it and it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the clamping company.

It happened a few months ago and I'm finally appealing it as we speak.

Would you believe the cheeky fcukers even charge a €20 appeals fee?

You should have saved yourself the money (the appeals fee that is).

Anan1

DrumSteve wrote: »

Is parking a commodity now?

If someone owns a car park and offers parking for a fee then parking there without paying is stealing, no?

DrumSteve wrote: »

I personally don't believe clamping is a deterrant (if it is why are numbers clamped rising each year). It is merely a method of increasing revenue.

You honestly don't think the likelihood of being clamped deters people from parking illegally?

DrumSteve wrote: »

Also practically what is the point of clamping? If you were not meant to be there in the first place what is the point in keeping you there for an indeterminate amount of time?

Deterrence.

Anan1

jd wrote: »

It works as a deterrent in our apartment complex. It was introduced reluctantly by the owners' committee, Now people usually park properly , don't use other residents' spaces, and there are more visitor spaces available for genuine visitors.

And therein lies the paradox. The very people who object to clamping are the people who make it necessary in the first place. It's not clamping per se that they hate, it's not being allowed to disregard the rules of the car park owner with impunity. If everyone parked with consideration for the rights of others there would be no clampers.

VolvoMan

DrumSteve wrote: »

You should have saved yourself the money (the appeals fee that is).

But they wouldn't be able to stand up in court with the way the sign is worded. It says "this car park is available to parents/carers between the hours of 12.00 and 13.00". There is nothing in it that jumps out and says "students are forbidden" etc etc.

I'm going to fight tooth, neck and bone for this.

Anan1

VolvoMan wrote: »

But they wouldn't be able to stand up in court with the way the sign is worded. It says "this car park is available to parents/carers between the hours of 12.00 and 13.00". There is nothing in it that jumps out and says "students are forbidden" etc etc.

I'm going to fight tooth, neck and bone for this.

+1. If you followed DrumSteve's advice you'd be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

DrumSteve

Anan1 wrote: »

If someone owns a car park and offers parking for a fee then parking there without paying is stealing, no?

Fair enough I see your point but I don't see parking as a commodity. Anyway the point of this thread is clamping not the validity of parking as a commodity.

You honestly don't think the likelihood of being clamped deters people from parking illegally?

As I said the numbers are rising so obviously it isn;t.

Deterrence.

I don't think you understood my point. Fines would work a lot better in terms of public perception also. Beside you can vandalise/ cut off a clamp... you can't dodge a fine forever.

DrumSteve

Anan1 wrote: »

+1. If you followed DrumSteve's advice you'd be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

My "advice" was given tongue in cheek and given from the perspective of someone who has went through the appeals process with a clamping company. Just though i'd clear that up for you there.

chalkitdown

My problem with the proposed legislation is the notional figure of €140. This is much too high.

markpb

VolvoMan wrote: »

But they wouldn't be able to stand up in court with the way the sign is worded. It says "this car park is available to parents/carers between the hours of 12.00 and 13.00". There is nothing in it that jumps out and says "students are forbidden" etc etc. I'm going to fight tooth, neck and bone for this.

Assuming you're quoting the sign properly (and maybe you're paraphasing), if you were neither a parent nor carer, why did you think you could park there? How is the sign confusing.

DrumSteve wrote: »

I don't think you understood my point. Fines would work a lot better in terms of public perception also. Beside you can vandalise/ cut off a clamp... you can't dodge a fine forever.

When fines were used in Dublin city centre, overstaying parking spaces was rife. Clamping was introduced and the situation got a lot better - from DCCs own experience, claming was more effective than clamping.

Besides, many people post here (in the motors forum) saying that fines from speed cameras aren't effective because they don't stop you breaking the law, they just punish you later on. Wouldn't fines for bad parking be the same?

squod

chalkitdown wrote: »

My problem with the proposed legislation is the notional figure of €140. This is much too high.

Which is another reason why college boy Varadkar shouldn't be let near something as important. Unless I call his daddy when I get into trouble too

VolvoMan

markpb wrote: »

Assuming you're quoting the sign properly (and maybe you're paraphasing), if you were neither a parent nor carer, why did you think you could park there? How is the sign confusing.

Well it doesn't officially say "students are not allowed park here during this time", but "this space is available to parents/carers between 13.00 and 14.00". It doesn't say anything about it being exclusive to them and I think it is on purpose so students will read it wrongly, park there and then get clamped.

What I have quoted in both of my posts is pretty much word for word by the way.

Anan1

DrumSteve wrote: »

Fair enough I see your point but I don't see parking as a commodity. Anyway the point of this thread is clamping not the validity of parking as a commodity..

They're linked - if everyone parked in accordance with the wishes of the landowner then there would be no clampers.

DrumSteve wrote: »

As I said the numbers are rising so obviously it isn;t.

That's nonsensical. How do you deduce from the fact that increasing numbers of people are getting clamped that clamping doesn't deter people from parking illegally?

DrumSteve wrote: »

I don't think you understood my point. Fines would work a lot better in terms of public perception also. Beside you can vandalise/ cut off a clamp... you can't dodge a fine forever.

We had fines a long time before we had clamping, and they didn't work - this is why clamping was introduced. One of the reasons i'm in favour of DCC clamping is that I can now get a space anywhere in town whenever I want - before clamping, I couldn't.

vetstu

Superglue the locks and watch them having to cut their own clamp off

VolvoMan

vetstu wrote: »

Superglue the locks and watch them having to cut their own clamp off

If I don't get my money back that's what I'm going to do to every car I see clamped within the college.

vetstu

VolvoMan wrote: »

If I don't get my money back that's what I'm going to do to every car I see clamped within the college.

two or three clamps and it's paid for itself. Keep it in the boot
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Stihl-Saw-Consaw-TS350-TS-350-Fully-Serviced-/270730257477?pt=UK_Hand_Tools_Equipment&hash=item3f08c7e445

-Chris-

OK, let's not start encouraging criminal damage of another person/company's property please.

KamiKazi

Anan1 wrote: »

And therein lies the paradox. The very people who object to clamping are the people who make it necessary in the first place. It's not clamping per se that they hate, it's not being allowed to disregard the rules of the car park owner with impunity. If everyone parked with consideration for the rights of others there would be no clampers.

This thread is about new clamping legislation coming into effect, not whether you think the clampees deserve to be clamped or not!

Can a mod please take care of the ex-mod dragging this thread off topic??

Irish Fire

These clampers should be registered with the PSA and would be easy to do as the PSA exist already.......

-Chris-

KamiKazi wrote: »

This thread is about new clamping legislation coming into effect, not whether you think the clampees deserve to be clamped or not!

Can a mod please take care of the ex-mod dragging this thread off topic??

You know the proper procedure if you have an issue with a post is to report it rather than calling another poster out on-thread.

If you do this again you'll be receiving a ban for back seat modding.


@everyone - can we please get back on topic and discuss the change in legislation rather than the moral ins and outs of clamping?

markpb

Irish Fire wrote: »

These clampers should be registered with the PSA and would be easy to do as the PSA exist already.......

This would seem to be the obvious/best solution. People will still have to pay and appeal a clamp to a regulator but if a single company fails appeals too often, they could have their license revoked. It would encourage clampers to keep an eye on the rogue elements among their staff and/or reduce any corporate tendancy to partake in skullduggary.

dr.fuzzenstein

Anan1 wrote: »

And therein lies the paradox. The very people who object to clamping are the people who make it necessary in the first place. It's not clamping per se that they hate, it's not being allowed to disregard the rules of the car park owner with impunity. If everyone parked with consideration for the rights of others there would be no clampers.

Absolutely.
And as an extension to life in general no speed cameras, traffic wardens, police force, etc... if people only behaved.
But they don't, the obnoxious parking thread is ample proof of that.
If supermarkets only "clamped down" on clowns taking up two spaces, blocking others, parking in disabled spots, that thread would be a lot less busy.
Quite frankly, if you park like an asshole you deserve to get clamped.
I park with consideration and, whaddayaknoow, I've never been clamped.
But there are those who think they can just abandon their jalopy any old where and not give a sh*t and they're the ones who scream the loudest when they get done for it.
Of course you will need regulation, because certainly a good percentage of clampers will also be (not very nice), but you need a certain personality type to become a clamper or gard or traffic warden.
So, in short, we need people who do stuff like that, or there'll be chaos.