Proposal for a clamping regulator.... Good or bad ?

MugMugs

Varadkar planning on a clamping regulator.

Friend or Foe ?

Personally I can't see this being to the benefit of the consumer and more the clamper.

For those on mobile

CLAMPERS ARE BEING targeted by new legislation from the Minister for Transport, Leo Varadkar.
The Minister will present outline proposals on the legislation to the Joint Committee on Environment, Transport, Culture and Gaeltacht.
The Joint Committee will then return to the Minister with their considered view on the matter, after consulting with local authorities, clamping operators, and the general public.
Following this consultation with the Joint Committee, the Minister hopes to bring the draft legislation before the House in 2012.
A spokesperson from the Department of Transport said the draft is likely to include specific guidelines to ensure that the industry operates in a fair manner.
The Minister said that self-regulation of the industry could be an option, but on current evidence it might not be effective.

The law currently allows local authorities to clamp vehicles in public places, either directly or by contract with a clamping company. However, the current system of clamping on private property is under-regulated, bad for motorists and bad for business.

There is no legislation specifically covering the clamping of vehicles parked on private property, and the legal position is unclear.

We want to bring in a new system which protects motorists from exploitation, and benefits legitimate operators, but which still penalises bad parking behaviour.

He added:

We are considering a system where companies would apply for a licence or permit in order to operate a clamping service, to ensure that clamping operators are of good character.

The proposals include:

• To ensure that people employed by clamping companies are of good repute;
• Consideration should be given for a licensing or permit system for clamping operators;
• New operating guidelines for clamping companies;
• Whether the licensing system should be operated by an existing State agency;
• And where exactly the new regime should apply eg apartments, shopping centres, and relevant local authority sites.

The Programme for Government includes a commitment to legislate to regulate the vehicle clamping industry.
The draft legislation is being introduced as the Minister said he is “aware of a range of issues which have been raised by members of the public regarding problems they have encountered with elements of the clamping industry”.
He said that an outright ban would be a move in the wrong direction, as “fair clamping does prevent nuisance parking on public roads or on private property, particularly at apartment blocks and shopping centres”.
Minister Varadkar believes that introducing measures to regulate the industry generally will be welcomed not only by the general public but also by legitimate clamping operators

mullingar

Im 100% behind it.

It will get rid of the rogue intimidating private clampers once and for all with a proper appeals process which was completely non-existent.

If you do park badly in a clearly marked clamping zone you deserve to be clamped.

Henry Ford III

Next proposal will be for an ombudsman, followed by a cpd programme.

p.s. The Gardai should be empowered to deal with clampers, and on the spot too.

Cookie_Monster

Another quango eh, fantastic.

Why can't the DoT do it internally or NTA, why is a separate specific regulator needed?

Bandara

Good old Leo, the day the government pays over €700 million to bondholders he strikes a blow for the man on the street.

This is the same Leo that swore that "not one more cent" should and would be paid over if FG was in power.

Liar.


(off topic I know but I cant stand this guy, sorry)

dan hibiki

very hard to see this working considering its such a grey area legally.

Anan1

dan hibiki wrote: »

very hard to see this working considering its such a grey area legally.

I think the point is to change that.;)

subway

set maximum release fee
fees held in escrow for 90 days to allow appeals to happen.
clampers fined double the release fee if found that they were not entitled to clamp
motorist refunded with apology & interest

i would be all for that. but i'm sure it will be just a load of uninterested gimps in a call centre reading out a script if you ask a question

heate

90 days in escrow is an absurdly long period. It's not The proceed from a house.
No business could survive waiting 90 days for payment and then having to ensure that each and every payment is by subject to a complaint.
On the subject of clamping if people park legally they won't be clamped? I've been clamped for not paying a few times and it was my own fault I should have paid! Watch where you park is probably the best advice

subway

heate wrote: »

90 days in escrow is an absurdly long period. It's not The proceed from a house.

however long it takes for the appeals process is fine for me

heate wrote: »

No business could survive waiting 90 days for payment and then having to ensure that each and every payment is by subject to a complaint.

they are not providing a service in exchange for payment, they are enforcing made up rules for private estates & car parks. they extract payment by means of fines. its so open to corrruption it is disgusting. if you read any of the threads on here you will see how wrong they get it. currrently you have no right of appeal and these "businesses" take full advantage by clamping people unfarily all the time

On the subject of clamping if people park legally they won't be clamped? I've been clamped for not paying a few times and it was my own fault I should have paid! Watch where you park is probably the best advice

no, have a search on here. if what you described was the norm, there would hardly be a need for a regualtor, would there?

Anan1

subway wrote: »

they are not providing a service in exchange for payment, they are enforcing made up rules for private estates & car parks. they extract payment by means of fines. its so open to corrruption it is disgusting. if you read any of the threads on here you will see how wrong they get it. currrently you have no right of appeal and these "businesses" take full advantage by clamping people unfarily all the time

The idea is to legislate for clamping and to provide an independent appeals process. Basically, you follow the rules and you don't get clamped, you break them and you do. There are two problems here:

1. Unfair clamping

and

2. People who think they can park how they like on other peoples property.

Properly crafted legislation with an independent appeals process can address both.

subway

i agree, but another toothless regualator that costs a fortune is not what we need.
theres a penalty for when drivers get it wrong but nothing for when clampers get it wrong.
currently, we have a situation where the clamper is always right and the motorist is always wrong.

as they are operating in the private enforcement sphere, there needs to be penalties for them. i would prefer financial penalties but would not be averse to criminal charges in extreme cases.

to me, they are operating a similar service to private security guards, however if a private security guard detained you and demanded a release fee (for example, if you decided to block a stairway) we know how that would end.
another example might be if you left your coat on a chair in a pub and they wanted an admin fee to give it back.
remember, no law is broken when you park badly in a private area, but there is huge potential for laws to be broken regarding how clampers act

Anan1

subway wrote: »

i agree, but another toothless regualator that costs a fortune is not what we need.
theres a penalty for when drivers get it wrong but nothing for when clampers get it wrong.
currently, we have a situation where the clamper is always right and the motorist is always wrong.

as they are operating in the private enforcement sphere, there needs to be penalties for them. i would prefer financial penalties but would not be averse to criminal charges in extreme cases.

to me, they are operating a similar service to private security guards, however if a private security guard detained you and demanded a release fee (for example, if you decided to block a stairway) we know how that would end.
another example might be if you left your coat on a chair in a pub and they wanted an admin fee to give it back.
remember, no law is broken when you park badly in a private area, but there is huge potential for laws to be broken regarding how clampers act

What part of 'introducing measures to regulate the industry' do you not understand?

Cavehill Red

The whole paradigm of clamping is wrong.

If a car is parked in a dangerous place, or is blocking access, then it should be towed and compounded.

Otherwise, it should be ticketed. No one should have the right to immobilise anyone else's mode of transport. It is impossible to know whether they might need it in emergency situations or not.

Instead of a clamping regulator, we should be looking at parking as a whole, with a view to eradicating this odious practice for good.

Anan1

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The whole paradigm of clamping is wrong.

If a car is parked in a dangerous place, or is blocking access, then it should be towed and compounded.

Otherwise, it should be ticketed. No one should have the right to immobilise anyone else's mode of transport. It is impossible to know whether they might need it in emergency situations or not.

Instead of a clamping regulator, we should be looking at parking as a whole, with a view to eradicating this odious practice for good.

I disagree. It's an unfortunate fact that many Irish drivers lack the decency to voluntarily abide by the rules of private car park owners. Towing is too slow, too awkward, and too expensive to function as an adequate deterrent. The rules need to be clearly signposted in the car park, so that nobody is in any doubt as to what will and what won't get you clamped. At the end of the day, you don't get to decide whether or not a landowner can clamp on their own property. If you don't like it then stay off their land.

subway

Anan1 wrote: »

What part of 'introducing measures to regulate the industry' do you not understand?

what on earth do you think i am discussing?

Anan1

subway wrote: »

what on earth do you think i am discussing?

Honestly, I think you're ranting about clampers rather than discussing how the industry can best be regulated. There are two sides to this issue, and both need to be addressed.

subway

i do think some clampers are unscrupulous, many would agree with me. i want to see them regulated as do many others, hence the legislation. i am outlining concerns i, and many others have, you are not addressing these points.

sure, there is a need to "do something" about bad parking, but the govt know that its impossible to regulate for parking on private property and, i would hope, everyone agrees with that (imagine a law as to how you can park in your own garden for example) so are allowing clamping to continue (despite currently being illegal) while they legislate for it and introduce controls to weed out the bad guys.

our legal system is supposed to depend on fairness, currently there is none for the person who isnt causing a problem or gets caught in the system. van drivers who cant park in their own estate, car drivers who are still waiting on a permit from the mgmt co and many other examples.

someone blocking an entrance way or access, i agree, but the lack of rules now mean, if a someone wants, they can introduce sillier and sillier rules to extract money via clamping

eth0

Bad. I dont see the practice of private clamping being legitimised is a good thing. It would be better if there was a decent framework through which car park owners can issue and collect fines and have clamping banned completely

Would stop private companies from holding peoples car to ransom which i feel is giving the likes of NCPS far too much power.

Absurdum

I have an easier, cheaper way to regulate the industry: outlaw it.

Anan1

subway wrote: »

i do think some clampers are unscrupulous, many would agree with me. i want to see them regulated as do many others, hence the legislation. i am outlining concerns i, and many others have, you are not addressing these points.

I think we're all agreed on that one. I don't see that it needs much discussion, we all want legislation for clear & accurate signposting and an independent appeals board.

subway wrote: »

sure, there is a need to "do something" about bad parking, but the govt know that its impossible to regulate for parking on private property and, i would hope, everyone agrees with that (imagine a law as to how you can park in your own garden for example) so are allowing clamping to continue (despite currently being illegal) while they legislate for it and introduce controls to weed out the bad guys.
...
someone blocking an entrance way or access, i agree, but the lack of rules now mean, if a someone wants, they can introduce sillier and sillier rules to extract money via clamping

Of course it's possible to do something. IMO, we need to legalize clamping on private property, with the proviso that it be done according to clearly defined rules. At the moment, we have a situation where drivers can effectively take the p1ss out of the rights of the owners of private car parks. This is neither right nor fair, and IMO private landowners should be perfectly entitled to clamp offenders provided that they run the system in a clear and transparent manner.

What you're essentially asking for here is to protect the rights of drivers, while completely ignoring the rights of landowners. How can that be right or fair?

Paulw

subway wrote: »

our legal system is supposed to depend on fairness, currently there is none for the person who isnt causing a problem or gets caught in the system. van drivers who cant park in their own estate, car drivers who are still waiting on a permit from the mgmt co and many other examples.

Van drivers not being allowed park in their own estate is due to planning regulations. Maybe you should have those addressed too? In the vast majority of cases, it states that parking is for residential vehicles only, and this is a stipulation in the planning documents for a development.

Permits and such are due to admin issues, and even those won't be addressed by the new proposed regulations.

Anyone who parks illegally or improperly deserves to be clamped.

If people obeyed the rules, the majority of clamping wouldn't happen.

Somehow, parking needs to be properly enforced, and regulation of clamping is a good way to go.

MugMugs

Henry Ford III wrote: »

p.s. The Gardai should be empowered to deal with clampers, and on the spot too.

+1 to that.

Another regulator is just another non required expense. Empower the Gardai to deal with non Bye Law Clampers and allow them regulate their conduct whilst also introducing maximum fines.

I'd rather see the whole thing done away with though and tickets handed out. If the local authority are so concered about their planning conditions on developments then police the level of compliance that they want in the first place.

Jaysoose

Gotta love the logic by the goverment, legitamising the private clampers under the guise of public service so they can collect license fees from them.

As if varadakar gives a crap what way people are parking in private estates, its a joke.

Anan1

Reading back over this thread, it's obvious that many posters have no interest whatsoever in the rights of car park owners. You are the people who have made, and continue to make, clamping a necessity. TBH, i'm not surprised you're worried.

Fey!

Shouldn't clampers fall under the PSA seeing as they have the "authority" to disable peoples property, and are used as enforcement against people who are technically trespassers (for want of a better way of putting it)?

Guy:Incognito

subway wrote: »

set maximum release fee
fees held in escrow for 90 days to allow appeals to happen.
clampers fined double the release fee if found that they were not entitled to clamp
motorist refunded with apology & interest

What about the release fee to double if the person is found to be takign the piss by appealing?

subway wrote: »

they are not providing a service in exchange for payment, they are enforcing made up rules for private estates & car parks.

All rules are made up.

If you dont want to follow the rules on someone elses property, dont use it.

Regardless of what you get in exchange for what they are doing, they still need to pay their employees. They cant really turn around and sya to them "we'll pay you in 90 days if people dont appeal and win"

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The whole paradigm of clamping is wrong.

If a car is parked in a dangerous place, or is blocking access, then it should be towed and compounded.

Otherwise, it should be ticketed. No one should have the right to immobilise anyone else's mode of transport. It is impossible to know whether they might need it in emergency situations or not.

Instead of a clamping regulator, we should be looking at parking as a whole, with a view to eradicating this odious practice for good.

Would you pay a fine given to you by Tesco or Dundrum shopping centre for abuseing the rules of their car park? Or would you chuck it in the bin?

heate

Ah yeah stop clamping altogether - why can't people realise that parking legally mean you don't get clamped it's not that difficult a concept to grasp!
As for a private fine - yeh straight in the bin never pay for parking again so

Irish Steve

Around this areas, almost all the supermarkets now have a 3 Hr limit, enforced by clampers. Why? Because our stupid transport system has no facilities for things like Park & Ride to get to Dublin, so the commuters park all day for free in the car park of the local supermarket, often not spending any money there either. The only solution was to introduce clamping to make spaces available for people that want to use the supermarket, but couldn't park.

Regulating the clampers has to happen, I got clamped in Dublin in a commercial sign written van on a local authority flats complex car park when attempting to make a delivery, and with no appeal.

We then discovered that we can "abandon" the vehicle for up to 30 minutes on just about any bit of road, so that's why you will often see a van on double yellows, with hazards on, rather than in the almost empty car park associated with the huge apartment complex that's right by it, as on the yellow lines, it's safe, but there's a good chance of the inconvenience and cost of a clamp if it's parked in the spaces outside where the delivery is being made. That's unacceptable, but don't bother appealing it, the clamp company don't want to know.

So, sorting out the mess is probably not a bad idea at this stage, as long as there is a sensible consultation process, and as long as the genuine concerns of all concerned are listened to. My concern would be that the track record of politicians listening to the ordinary man in the street is not good, or their solution costs more money, or it costs more and doesn't solve the original problem.

As an example, (Rant ON) with almost no discussion, or much time to do anything about it, a small business operating a car derived van is about to see a 30%+ increase in the annual DOE test fee, with no real benefit to anyone as a result. That does not impress me at this time, most small businesses are struggling to survive as it is, without this sort of massive fee increase for something that in most cases could be done as part of the existing NCT system, all car derived vans could be tested by NCT, rather than having to be tested in a facility that's more appropriate to a 32 Tonne Artic truck. If a car only needs testing every 2 years, I could live with an annual test for a van if the mileage is higher, but not when the cost of that test is so much higher than the NCT cost, for basically the same format and type of test.

I fear another stealth tax, especially if the Private Security Agency gets to be responsible for the management of the clamp companies, they've already put most small self employed electricians out of the security alarm business by the level of their fees and licence prices,

Do I sound like I am P***ed off? Damn right I am, in exactly the same way that the last crowd in Leinster House managed to ignore the vast majority, the present incumbents are treating us with the same contempt, and hoping that if they ignore us for long enough, we'll go away, and forget all their promises, and ignore all their mistakes.

Nero, fiddles, Rome and burning are all phrases that come to mind. They are so busy tinkering around the edges changing things that don't really matter in the scale of things while ignoring the massive and major issues, like our joke of a health service, among other things. €200 Million for agency staff because they can't manage the staff numbers properly is insanity, and the disclosure of a €3.6 BILLION hole in the accounts makes one wonder if anyone in Finance knows what they are doing. Have any heads rolled, has anyone been got rid of for incompetence? That'll be the day, (RANT OFF)


Maybe what we really need is a revolution rather than yet another referendum, with a rerun if they don't get the result they wanted, perhaps then they might sit up and take notice.

Steve

Eric Cartman

youd could never properly regulate companies like APCOA or NCPS, their a bunch of b*stards, why not just make private clamping entirely illegal , sounds like the best way to do things

bcmf

'Government' and 'Regulator'. Two words that when put together make me shudder.

Anan1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

youd could never properly regulate companies like APCOA or NCPS, their a bunch of b*stards, why not just make private clamping entirely illegal , sounds like the best way to do things

Mightn't the people who actually own the car parks have more of a right than you to decide how best to to regulate parking on their own property?

jd

Jaysoose wrote: »

As if varadakar gives a crap what way people are parking in private estates, its a joke.

Actually he lives in an apartment so he probably does

Eric Cartman

Anan1 wrote: »

Mightn't the people who actually own the car parks have more of a right than you to decide how best to to regulate parking on their own property?

barriers work fine, nobody should have the right to stick anything to my vehicle

Anan1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

barriers work fine, nobody should have the right to stick anything to my vehicle

Who are you to dictate to someone whether they should employ barriers or clamping on their own land? You have the right to have their rules made clear to you at the point of entry - if you don't like those rules then get off their property.

Guy:Incognito

Eric Cartman wrote: »

barriers work fine, nobody should have the right to stick anything to my vehicle

Why should they have to go to th ehassle and expense of having a barrier and ticket system installed and maintained just because people wont obey the rules on their land?

Wexfordian

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Instead of a clamping regulator, we should be looking at parking as a whole, with a view to eradicating this odious practice for good.

I don't know, parking is sometimes necessary, and not always evil...

(Sorry couldn't resist)

Solair

Pointless!
It should be legislated our of existence and only used by local authorities. Clamping on private property should be illegal, end of story. There are less money grabbing ways of enforcing parking or prevention of unauthorised use of spaces eg barriers, liftable poles on single private spaces etc etc

We functioned perfectly well for decades without clamps!

I really do not like this man wasting my money to provide a regulator for a nasty practice that really should not exist!

Anan1

Solair wrote: »

We functioned perfectly well for decades without clamps!

As anyone who remembers Dublin before clamping will tell you, we didn't.

Solair

It's the private clamping that I find particularly nasty!
It's often nothing short of money grabbing rather than anything to do with traffic or parking management.

Anan1

Solair wrote: »

It's the private clamping that I find particularly nasty!
It's often nothing short of money grabbing rather than anything to do with traffic or parking management.

If it was properly signposted, enforced exactly as per the signs, and with an independent appeals board, then would you still have a problem with it?

ofcork

There has to be some form of private clamping once regulated and signposted properly there should not be a problem,as an example the wilton shopping centre car park in cork is constantly being used by people who will not pay in the hospital car park across the road.

Farmlife

Get rid of it all together and people will have a free for all, private fines... not worth the paper there printed on. As much as i hate it, clamping need to stay but be hit hard by regulations.

PSA would be a great start, after all they are securing and enforcing parking rules on private property. What industry did a lot of the security that didn't make it through the Garda vetting form look to? What is NCPS's sister company?

Also rules on what justifies getting clamped, maybe give a 25% allowance of the time you have paid for before the clamp comes out. Drill it into there head that double yellow lines mean nothing on private property unless accompanied by a sign to say they represent an area that is off limit for parking.

O, and they can put 2 clamps on people parking in disabled spaces

Anan1

rgugliel wrote: »

Also rules on what justifies getting clamped, maybe give a 25% allowance of the time you have paid for before the clamp comes out.

You wouldn't force a shop owner to give 25% extra free, why should a car park be any different?

Farmlife

Anan1 wrote: »

You wouldn't force a shop owner to give 25% extra free, why should a car park be any different?

Maybe because the most likely reason your parking outside on there private property is because you are inside there premises spending money and keeping them in business

Anan1

rgugliel wrote: »

Maybe because the most likely reason your parking outside on there private property is because you are inside there premises spending money and keeping them in business

You think that gives you the right to tell them how to run their business? It doesn't. If you don't like the deal then go somewhere else.

Absurdum

Anan1 wrote: »

You wouldn't force a shop owner to give 25% extra free, why should a car park be any different?

Shop owners also don't incapacitate anyone who might violate any spurious rules they come up with.

Farmlife

Anan1 wrote: »

You think that gives you the right to tell them how to run their business? It doesn't. If you don't like the deal then go somewhere else.

Relax there tonto, I'm not telling anyone anything... just making a suggestion on how things might be done fairly. what we say here isn't going to change anything :rolleyes:

Anan1

Absurdum wrote: »

Shop owners also don't incapacitate anyone who might violate any spurious rules they come up with.

Sure they do - get caught shoplifting and you'll be detained.

rgugliel wrote: »

Relax there tonto, I'm not telling anyone anything... just making a suggestion on how things might be done fairly. what we say here isn't going to change anything :rolleyes:

I am relaxed, i'm just responding to your suggestion re the mandatory 25% time allowance. I can't see why a private car park operator should be obliged to give even a minute's grace on paid parking. I can see why they should have to make all customers aware of their rules, and I can see why they should have to abide by these rules themselves, but this isn't Communist Russia - if a CP operator wants to charge €20/hour with immediate clamping for expired tickets and a €500 declamp fee then (as long as it's clearly signposted) it's their land and their decision. The market likely won't support them but, like any other business, they should be perfectly entitled to give it a go. As I said earlier, if you don't like the deal then go somewhere else.

Absurdum

Anan1 wrote: »

Sure they do - get caught shoplifting and you'll be detained.

that's for breaking a law though, and there have been plenty of cases where detainees have successfully sued shopowners for doing it

Anan1

Absurdum wrote: »

that's for breaking a law though, and there have been plenty of cases where detainees have successfully sued shopowners for doing it

You're consistently avoiding my question. Can any one of you tell me why you think you have the right to stop landowners from operating properly signposted clamping on their own land?