Clamped!

Stark

kbannon wrote: »

Do please, because you said that it is, not was illegal!

Don't bother asking the opinions of people on the Internet. Check out what the law society has to say: http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202011/march2011.pdf (Page 30). They're of the opinion that it violates section 113. They also recommend the use of barrier systems with fines proportional to the time not paid for in order to enforce parking regulations in the absence of a legal basis for clamping.

Guy:Incognito

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I know, this is where the grace period comes into play. If such a system was in place, I would know that I have x amount of time to go and get money to pay for my parking to avoid being clamped.

.

But you (the OP in this case) know there is no grace period. The signs are up to show the rules, so he cant claim he thought there was a grace period. The car was left, full in the knowledge that it was liable for clamping at any time.

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

No I wouldn't. Reason? If there was legislation in place, everyone would know what they were and were not entitled to do. If the OP was not entitled to do what he did and as a result he was clamped then fair game.

This is the grey area that needs to be addressed. Once the system is fair and clear I would have no problem.

Fair enough. But you also accept that the OP would still have been clamped even under a clear and fair system? And if so, what's the difference? Because the OP must have known that 20 mins was too long.

fasttalkerchat

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I know, this is where the grace period comes into play. If such a system was in place, I would know that I have x amount of time to go and get money to pay for my parking to avoid being clamped.

This is win win for everyone involved.

Even if all machines had a number to pay by text.

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

Fair enough. But you also accept that the OP would still have been clamped even under a clear and fair system? And if so, what's the difference? Because the OP must have known that 20 mins was too long.

Well under the law society document, the clamping company wouldn't have been allowed charge €120 in order to recover the 20 mins the OP didn't pay for as the charge is hugely disproportionate to the free parking the OP received:

A large deterrent fee –even if agreed to by the consumer through reading the signage – is a penalty fee and unenforceable, unless some relationship can be shown with the damages suffered by the car park through the overstaying motorist. A penalty fee rather than liquidated damages is void under the common law and is regarded as an unfair term and, therefore, unenforceable under the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations 1995 (SI 27 of 1995, schedule 3, article 1(e): “requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation”.

fasttalkerchat

Stark wrote: »

Don't bother asking the opinions of people on the Internet. Check out what the law society has to say: http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202011/march2011.pdf (Page 30). They're of the opinion that it violates section 113. They also recommend the use of barrier systems with fines proportional to the time not paid for in order to enforce parking regulations in the absence of a legal basis for clamping.

I posted section 113 already for him.

The law says clamping is illegal however it doesn't provide a way to legally take it off since it remains their property. Unwanted gift may not stand up in court!

fasttalkerchat

Stark wrote: »

Well under the law society document, the clamping company wouldn't have been allowed charge €120 in order to recover the 20 mins the OP didn't pay for as the charge is hugely disproportionate to the free parking the OP received:

The fee charged is not a parking fine. It is a fee for the service of removing the clamp from your vehicle. They can charge what they like.

Drummerboy08

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But you (the OP in this case) know there is no grace period. The signs are up to show the rules, so he cant claim he thought there was a grace period. The car was left, full in the knowledge that it was liable for clamping at any time.

If that was the case, your car would be liable to be clamped from the moment you leave it to walk the 30 seconds/5 minutes to the ticket machine.

Anan1 wrote: »

Fair enough. But you also accept that the OP would still have been clamped even under a clear and fair system? And if so, what's the difference? Because the OP must have known that 20 mins was too long.

Not nesessarily, as we do not know what grace period could be agreed. It could be a case that a clamper couldnt touch a car without knowing it was parked there for up to x minutes without payment. That period, could be five minutes, or it could be twenty.

Someone made a valid point earlier too, the OP came back twenty minutes later to find his car clamped. That means that the clamper had got to his car, and clamped it WITHIN twenty minutes, not after.

So there is the possibility also that the OP's car was clamped after five minutes, and not twenty which I think we can all agree isn't fair, and is greedy.

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

Well under the law society document, the clamping company wouldn't have been allowed charge €120 in order to recover the 20 mins the OP didn't pay for as the charge is hugely disproportionate to the free parking the OP received:

Presumably regulation would involve a new legal framework, as with council clamping.

Marlow

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The fee charged is not a parking fine. It is a fee for the service of removing the clamp from your vehicle. They can charge what they like.

Hence it's not enforcable, when you're removing the clamp undamaged yourself.

/M

fasttalkerchat

Marlow wrote: »

Hence it's not enforcable, when you're removing the clamp undamaged yourself.

/M

That's true. You're free to remove it yourself provided you don't damage it. IMO you should also be able to claim for your time and hire of any necessary equipment.

Stark

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The law says clamping is illegal however it doesn't provide a way to legally take it off since it remains their property. Unwanted gift may not stand up in court!

The lads in question here were able to remove the clamp without damaging it.

hondasam

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I know, this is where the grace period comes into play. If such a system was in place, I would know that I have x amount of time to go and get money to pay for my parking to avoid being clamped.

This is win win for everyone involved.

It's not really because some people might only need 20 minutes which means they would get free parking stopping someone who might want to park for longer and paying to park.

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Not nesessarily, as we do not know what grace period could be agreed. It could be a case that a clamper couldnt touch a car without knowing it was parked there for up to x minutes without payment. That period, could be five minutes, or it could be twenty.

Someone made a valid point earlier too, the OP came back twenty minutes later to find his car clamped. That means that the clamper had got to his car, and clamped it WITHIN twenty minutes, not after.

So there is the possibility also that the OP's car was clamped after five minutes, and not twenty which I think we can all agree isn't fair, and is greedy.

OP made reference way back in the thread to having been clamped just before they returned. As long as it's clearly signposted then the grace period could theoretically be whatever the car park owner wants, although i'd perhaps favour a statutory minimum of 5 minutes with machines no more than a minute away. It should be comfortable for the user, but it needn't be more.

Drummerboy08

hondasam wrote: »

It's not really because some people might only need 20 minutes which means they would get free parking stopping someone who might want to park for longer and paying to park.

The figure might not be twenty minutes, it would be whatever is considered a reasonable amount of time to get money and to pay for parking. That could be 5/10/20 minutes, whatever.

Once it's there people know what the rules are and can work from there.

Marlow

hondasam wrote: »

It's not really because some people might only need 20 minutes which means they would get free parking stopping someone who might want to park for longer and paying to park.

Again. With a barrier less carpark there will always be somebody that slips through one or the other way. That being wrong is another issue.

With a barrier controlled carpark, that's not an issue.

/M

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

With a barrier controlled carpark, that's not an issue.

/M

It's not an option in every case. Why should those owners be punished?

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's not an option in every case. Why should those owners be punished?

Why do you consider it punishment ? It's providing a better service and maximizing revenue without hassle.

If you think of people flunking the fee on an open carpark as lost revenue and weigh that against what it costs to install barriers, then they're paying for themselves in very little time.

/M

hondasam

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

The figure might not be twenty minutes, it would be whatever is considered a reasonable amount of time to get money and to pay for parking. That could be 5/10/20 minutes, whatever.

Once it's there people know what the rules are and can work from there.

we all know the car parks in our towns/cities and what the charges are etc.
Personally I would never leave my car if there was clampers in operation without making sure I had paid.
I know in Galway they used to have people cycling around watching people parking and leaving the car and they would ring the clamper.
Would it not have made sense for the OP to go to the bank first to get money. How much is the parking in that car park?
I parked in the multi story in Galway today for just over 2 hrs and it cost me €6.60 it must be the dearest place to park in Ireland.

Stark

hondasam wrote: »

It's not really because some people might only need 20 minutes which means they would get free parking stopping someone who might want to park for longer and paying to park.

The point of providing the parking isn't that you make money off the parking, it's to bring customers to your shop. Presumably the charge is to stop people from abusing the parking and parking all day then heading to work or whatever. Missing out on a parking fee because your customer was fast in and out of your shop shouldn't be your primary concern.

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

Why do you consider it punishment ? It's providing a better service and maximizing revenue without hassle.

/M

The first part of my post and the 2nd part go together.

I'll repeat, what if putting in barriers isnt an option? Why is the owner punished for something he cant control (not being able to fit a barrier system)

Either way, we're back to people should have more respect for other people when using their land and do as asked.

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I'll repeat, what if putting in barriers isnt an option? Why is the owner punished for something he cant control (not being able to fit a barrier system)

I can't see any layout, where barriers wouldn't be possible.

/M

Bruthal

Anan1 wrote: »

It's a clamp, it's not like they were going to chop his head off!

I don`t think the OP was going to chop the clamper`s head off either.

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

Why do you consider it punishment ? It's providing a better service and maximizing revenue without hassle.

If you think of people flunking the fee on an open carpark as lost revenue and weigh that against what it costs to install barriers, then they're paying for themselves in very little time.

/M

Stark wrote: »

The point of providing the parking isn't that you make money off the parking, it's to bring customers to your shop. Presumably the charge is to stop people from abusing the parking and parking all day then heading to work or whatever. Missing out on a parking fee because your customer was fast in and out of your shop shouldn't be your primary concern.

You guys need to understand that these aren't your calls to make. The car park owner decides how to run their car park, you decide whether or not to use it.

Bruthal

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Either way, we're back to people should have more respect for other people when using their land and do as asked.

So, a driver finds they have no change. They go to get some, and have difficulty which delays them. Is that disrespecting the owner, when the intention is to get money to pay, and they in fact do actually pay?

Anan1

robbie7730 wrote: »

So, a driver finds they have no change. They go to get some, and have difficulty which delays them. Is that disrespecting the owner, when the intention is to get money to pay, and they in fact do actually pay?

Yes. Get the money, then park - that's how it works.

Bruthal

Anan1 wrote: »

Yes. Get the money, then park - that's how it works.

So a driver who finds themselves without change, and goes to get some, is disrespecting the car park owner? Madness.

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

you guys need to understand that these aren't your calls to make. The car park owner decides how to run their car park, you decide whether or not to use it.

You need to understand that using illegal tactics to enforce one's rules for the sake of convenience isn't the car park owner's call to make. No point in crying that someone removed your clamp without paying when you're the one in the wrong.

Wexfordian

Why do people keep quoting the RTA and glossing over the words "or reasonable cause"?