Clamped!

ANXIOUS

Anan1 wrote: »

Like I said, i've never seen anyone present evidence that private clamping is illegal. I've seen S.113 misquoted many times, but that's about the size of it. Can you show me that it's illegal, as opposed to just telling me?

Okay how about this? You show us that clamping is legal. The amount of people on here that have said they have removed a clamp by cutting the lock and nothing has happened. Surely if clamping was legal, the campers would make an example out of them and publish the cash everywhere ala fines for not having a train ticket. A few pages by the judge in waterford threw out the case. Can you link anything?

Anan1

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Okay how about this? You show us that clamping is legal. The amount of people on here that have said they have removed a clamp by cutting the lock and nothing has happened. Surely if clamping was legal, the campers would make an example out of them and publish the cash everywhere ala fines for not having a train ticket. A few pages by the judge in waterford threw out the case. Can you link anything?

You're saying that because it's not illegal to remove a clamp it must therefore be illegal to affix one? That makes no sense.

ANXIOUS

Anan1 wrote: »

You're saying that because it's not illegal to remove a clamp it must therefore be illegal to affix one? That makes no sense.

Okay, show me a law that says clamping is legal by a private company?

Anan1

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Okay, show me a law that says clamping is legal by a private company?

FFS, laws tell you what's illegal, not what's legal!

fasttalkerchat

To stop this going round in circle.

Clamping is illegal.
For anyone that missed that debate:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79371720&postcount=745

Jesus Shaves

Anan1 wrote: »

FFS, laws tell you what's illegal, not what's legal!

Are you purposely trying to make yourself out to be a complete and utter d*ck?

Anan1

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

To stop this going round in circle.

Clamping is illegal.
For anyone that missed that debate:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79371720&postcount=745

That doesn't show that clamping is illegal. Like many others, you're conveniently ignoring without lawful authority or reasonable cause.

fasttalkerchat

Anan1 wrote: »

That doesn't show that clamping is illegal. Like many others, you're conveniently ignoring without lawful authority or reasonable cause.

No reasonable cause. Lawful authority was a grey area until a judge ruled against it. The full case is up a few pages back. I'm away out.

Bruthal

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

No reasonable cause. Lawful authority was a grey area until a judge ruled against it. The full case is up a few pages back. I'm away out.

Dont forget to bring some change.

Drummerboy08

Nice to see we've come full circle today. :rolleyes:

Wexfordian

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

No reasonable cause. Lawful authority was a grey area until a judge ruled against it. The full case is up a few pages back. I'm away out.

Afraid not. It was thrown out in that specific case. WIT continued clamping thereafter without any issues. I think WITSU challenged a couple more cases but lost them. (My only connection to this btw was being on the staff of WITSU a good bit before this, so I tend to notice articles relating to it out of curiosity).

The actual objection to clamping under the law isn't so much the RTA section quoted, but an anomaly in Irish law (its outlined at length in the article that both myself and Stark have linked to). In most countries, a notice stating the terms and conditions of parking and stating that by parking you are agreeing to them is sufficient to create a contract. In Ireland it can be argued that this isn't the case, but its not clear as to how much it can be applied to clamping.

If the signs are sufficient notice, then there is probably "reasonable cause" and S113 is not relevant, if they aren't then S113 is relevant. Either way S113 is not an anti-clamping magical bullet....

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Nice to see we've come full circle today. :rolleyes:

You've already said that you wouldn't have helped to remove the clamp if the OP had been clamped under a fair and regulated system. Can't you see that such a system wouldn't allow someone 20 minutes to go off and get change? Therefore even if the system isn't fair, what's the relevance of that in the OP's case?

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

You've already said that you wouldn't have helped to remove the clamp if the OP had been clamped under a fair and regulated system. Can't you see that such a system wouldn't allow someone 20 minutes to go off and get change? Therefore even if the system isn't fair, what's the relevance of that in the OP's case?

Who has said the system wouldnt allow for 20 minutes?

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Who has said the system wouldnt allow for 20 minutes?

20 minutes is a long time. Dún Laoghaire gives 15, the idea being that you don't have to pay at all for most errands. That's the council deciding to help out local business, private car park owners will be under no obligation to give more than the time it takes to get a ticket. And in this case I don't think there was any posted grace period?

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

20 minutes is a long time. Dún Laoghaire gives 15, the idea being that you don't have to pay at all for most errands. That's the council deciding to help out local business, private car park owners will be under no obligation to give more than the time it takes to get a ticket. And in this case I don't think there was any posted grace period?

So it's your opinion, and not that of any court or other legal body?

Grand, I'll wait to see what they say.

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

So it's your opinion, and not that of any court or other legal body?

Grand, I'll wait to see what they say.

Bit snippy this morning, aren't we? Of course it's only my opinion, we don't yet have regulation. I don't think a 20 minute grace period is objectively reasonable, and I think the only thing stopping you from admitting it is that it would undermine your grounds for removing the clamp.

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

Bit snippy this morning, aren't we? Of course it's only my opinion, we don't yet have regulation. I don't think a 20 minute grace period is objectively reasonable, and I think the only thing stopping you from admitting it is that it would undermine your grounds for removing the clamp.

I think twenty minutes i perfectly reasonable for a clamper not to touch a vehicle.

I have my opinion and you have your's, so until someone steps in with the legislation, I'll continue to do what I do and you can do whatever it is you do.

BUBBLE WRAP

Anan1 wrote: »

Bit snippy this morning, aren't we?

I believe you can get your opinion across without sly little comments like that. :rolleyes:

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I think twenty minutes i perfectly reasonable for a clamper not to touch a vehicle.

I have my opinion and you have your's, so until someone steps in with the legislation, I'll continue to do what I do and you can do whatever it is you do.

You seem to be changing your position here?

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.

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I do agree with you here, but it has to be a two way system. The other party (i.e. the driver of a car) need's to know EXACTLY what they are getting into when they park in a private carpark.

They need to know that by not paying for the parking, they are essentially agreeing to allow their vehicle to be clamped.

The OP knew from the signs that they were liable to be clamped if they didn't pay for parking. The OP knew that there was no grace period, as none was signposted. The OP seems to have been given 15 minutes grace anyway, but that wasn't enough. And yet now, even though your previous conditions have been fulfilled in this case, you want the OP to be given 20 minutes grace? What if the queue in the bank had been longer, would you then expect 30 minutes grace?

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

You seem to be changing your position here?The OP knew from the signs that they were liable to be clamped if they didn't pay for parking. The OP knew that there was no grace period, as none was signposted. The OP seems to have been given 15 minutes grace anyway, but that wasn't enough. And yet now, even though your previous conditions have been fulfilled in this case, you want the OP to be given 20 minutes grace? What if the queue in the bank had been longer, would you then expect 30 minutes grace?

Read those posts again, you'll see I'm not changing anything. I've said that I think that 20 minutes is reasonable, but that it could be anything from 5 minutes to 20 minutes.

Don't see how I've changed positions there?

For a start, we don't know how long the OP's car was parked there before he was clamped. The process in my experience takes 10 minutes for a clamper, from discovery to fitting the clamp and taking the details. Therefore the OP would have only been there 10 minutes.

frozenfrozen

Currently taking notes on how to get 19,000 posts on boards.ie

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Read those posts again, you'll see I'm not changing anything. I've said that I think that 20 minutes is reasonable, but that it could be anything from 5 minutes to 20 minutes.

Don't see how I've changed positions there?

For a start, we don't know how long the OP's car was parked there before he was clamped. The process in my experience takes 10 minutes for a clamper, from discovery to fitting the clamp and taking the details. Therefore the OP would have only been there 10 minutes.

OP said way back at the start of the thread that they were just clamped, so i'm assuming they were clamped between 15 and 20 minutes after they parked. Just so we're clear, how about if they had been gone for, say 25 minutes and clamped after 22, would you have helped remove the clamp then? Or is 20 minutes the cut-off figure for you?

eringobragh

Anan1 wrote: »

OP said way back at the start of the thread that they were just clamped, so i'm assuming they were clamped between 15 and 20 minutes after they parked. Just so we're clear, how about if they had been gone for, say 25 minutes and clamped after 22, would you have helped remove the clamp then? Or is 20 minutes the cut-off figure for you?

colm_mcm

The op posted 2 and a half hours after the bank closed so let's not make any assumptions!

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

OP said way back at the start of the thread that they were just clamped, so i'm assuming they were clamped between 15 and 20 minutes after they parked. Just so we're clear, how about if they had been gone for, say 25 minutes and clamped after 22, would you have helped remove the clamp then? Or is 20 minutes the cut-off figure for you?

Just clamped could mean anything, it's your interpretation of that that is giving you the figure of five minutes. It could be 15 minutes in my opinion.

I don't have any "cut off figure". I'm not running a business removing clamps, nor do I have any kind of rules and regulations set out! I'll help someone remove a clamp if i think that that person was clamped unfairly.

If the car was parked up for an hour (in some cases it's possible to be longer) I would still help remove a clamp if i believe the clampers acted unfairly.

fasttalkerchat

If your kid leave his bike in my garden and I have a sign up saying all bikes will be confiscated if left here we wouldn't be arguing over 20 mins. Clamping for a 2 euro parking ticket or because it took 20 mins to get one is wrong.

hondasam

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Just clamped could mean anything, it's your interpretation of that that is giving you the figure of five minutes. It could be 15 minutes in my opinion.

I don't have any "cut off figure". I'm not running a business removing clamps, nor do I have any kind of rules and regulations set out! I'll help someone remove a clamp if i think that that person was clamped unfairly.

If the car was parked up for an hour (in some cases it's possible to be longer) I would still help remove a clamp if i believe the clampers acted unfairly.

How do you determine what is unfair? If I know there are clampers in a car park then I would not abandon my car not even for 5 minutes.

Drummerboy08

hondasam wrote: »

How do you determine what is unfair? If I know there are clampers in a car park then I would not abandon my car not even for 5 minutes.

This is the point, I can tell you what I think is unfair, and you can tell me what you think is fair, but that's all it is. Opinion.

Until someone steps up and brings in legislation to deal with private clamping, there will always be grey areas, in every case.

fasttalkerchat

hondasam wrote: »

How do you determine what is unfair? If I know there are clampers in a car park then I would not abandon my car not even for 5 minutes.

In some towns that means just not going to the shops. Mullingar town for example, you have to pay to park on the main street and in all carparks. If you don't have change on you its a long drive to an ATM then to get change if you don't leave the car unattended somewhere you have to pay.

hondasam

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

This is the point, I can tell you what I think is unfair, and you can tell me what you think is fair, but that's all it is. Opinion.

Until someone steps up and brings in legislation to deal with private clamping, there will always be grey areas, in every case.

No one likes clampers but they are necessary sometimes. There are some people who take chances and will not pay to park.
IMO if there is a sign saying clamping in operation and you leave your car then you deserve to suffer the consequences.
If you need money you get it before you leave the car.