Clamping appeal- independent body

jensy

Hi all,

Has anyone ever successfully appealed a clamping charge to the independent body IPAS? It costs 20 euro to do this.

I was recently clamped by Apcoa based on a one digit error I made typing in the registration plate for visitor parking in Milltown.

My fault entirely- it was a typo!

125 euro was the cost to get the clamp removed and Apcoa have refused my appeal.

Just wondering should i let this go as it was my error or is worth taking further?
Thanks!

Stark

It's not an independent body, it's run by the clamping companies. It'll just mean that you're 145 euro out of pocket instead of 125.

Jarren

Chargeback if you paid with a credit card.

dr.fuzzenstein

They charge you to appeal?:eek:
That's sick!
It's about the same as being executed in China and the relatives having to pay for the bullet.
I have always made a case for clamping, i.e. dozy gits and ignorant arsehole parkers needing to be taught a lesson, but from now on I can only say fcuk 'em!
Cut off the clamp next time, whilst in disguise and when challenged afterwards say "Who me? No, never, I would never do that. Sure there was no clamp on my car when I got back, I don't know what you want from me, I know nothing, I'm from Barcelona".
What are they going to do? Not a damn thing.
Meanwhile, OP, get onto the papers and expose those money raping hoores.
We want names and faces of the fat, bald, incompetent, slope-browed, hunched over sub humans that did that to you!

Anan1

jensy wrote: »

Just wondering should i let this go as it was my error or is worth taking further?
Thanks!

I can't see how they'd grant an appeal if you weren't wrongly clamped.

wonski

Anan1 wrote: »

I can't see how they'd grant an appeal if you weren't wrongly clamped.

Well - charging 125E for a typo is a bit harsh... I assume it was one of those park by text systems, or similiar op?

There should be a difference between someone who did not pay for a parking, and someone who made simple mistake.

pred racer

I think if there was a proper appeals process, people might hate clampers less!

In the Op's case there was a simple mistake, so the clampers cant be blamed for the clamping, but on appeal that car was parked legally, and the clamping fee should be refunded, and maybe the appeal fee kept for costs???

Half the reason I think that people hate clampers so much is the frustration of not being able to do anything about a percieved wrongful clamp!

But until there is some rules for these cowboys, and an appeals process that works...........cut it off;)

In your particular case OP, from what i have heard of appeals success, you would be wasting €20.

jensy

Thanks all for the feedback. Will pay the 20 euro and appeal. On principle I can't let it lie without a fight. Barcelona approach next time:)

Caliden

I have yet to hear of anyone to win an appeal with a clamping company.

I mean, after-all, it's the company who clamped you that decide if you win the appeal or not and I doubt they care about their rep as they're not liked much anyway. It's just a way for them to get an extra 20 quid out of you.

NicolaTMNS

Here's my recent story...

Paid Parking - have it in writing from parking company I paid but APCOA refusing refund!

5th July 2012 - Phoenix Park Train Station

Parked car and paid over the phone using credit card to parking company - ParkMagic. Received text confirming registration for parking with them and headed into the Stone Roses concert. Came back to find my car clamped. Rang APCOA (the crowd who clamped us) claiming I had in fact paid for parking. Damien told me my reg plate was on their system alright but that it had an extra digit 3 at the end of it. Release fee €120 plus an extra €35 surcharge as it was after 10:30pm! Ludicrous! The lady beside me overheard my conversation and she was told the same story only she had a number 2 entered at the end of hers hence she was clamped too! To cut a long story short where I believe the problem lay in the payment option to be selected after reg plate entry on the phone system, we obviously appealed but were refused a refund based on Apcoa's 'fact' that we had not paid for parking. Since then I have in writing from ParkMagic that we had paid on the night and should not have been clamped. So where do I go from here? Just checked the Ombudsman's site and I'm not sure they cover clamping companies. I have written letters to all newspaper editors, one radio and tv program relaying my story. We even rang the Gardaí on the night who didn't want to know. I will continue with this until I get justice as I feel innocent til proven guilty does not apply in APCOA's 'jurisdiction'. Sending me a photo of our clamped car saying it was parked in an unpaid bay while I have in writing from the parking company that we were paid up is really Apcoa taking the law into their own hands. I'm not impressed and will make every effort to bring this to the public attention.

franksm

Hi NicolaTMNS

Because the clamping company are hanging on to the tehnicalities of how the payment was received, and because the payment system may be open to operator error, you might have to seek redress via solicitor.

If you do go that route, make sure to also claim costs from the clamping company, eg. the cost of the solicitors letter, fee etc.

I had to go this route a while ago with a different company - no method of escalation or appeal to the clamping company or their agent worked, making me think that such things (appeals) are not worth the paper they're written on. Solicitor sorted it out very quicky, for the cost of two letters which the clampers also had to pay for in the end.

Good luck...

NicolaTMNS

Hi franksm,

Thanks so much for your input, I appreciate it.

My next step was to go to the solicitor so your feedback on your experience is great to know. I really don't want to make any more appeals as I feel they will be a waste of time.

I will post my result on the solicitor route for other readers as I am sure this is a recurring issue.

Nic

NicolaTMNS

Just to update my last post. I wrote one final email to APCOA's office in Stuttgart before making an appointment to see a solicitor. Appointment cancelled as cheque arrived in the post.
Setting up a petition next to have these companies monitored.

BigEejit

Congratulations on getting your money back, but it appears that this was their fault and their complaints process is not impartial so they should be regulated. However, Ireland is broke and if there is an independent body created, who will pay, either taxpayers of the poor suckers who get caught by the leeching clampers?

Stark

So because we're broke we should let lawlessness rule. What next, the return of "protection money" for parking on St. Stephen's Green?

jconn

I would like to know if jensy or anyone else has been successfull in getting any kind of refund from this "Independent Parking Appeals Services (IPAS)"?

I too had my initial appeal turned down and am considering the second appeal with a €20 administration fee.

From what I read online this "Independent Parking Appeals Services (IPAS)" don't seem to be very independent from the NCPS who clamped my car in Louisa Bridge car park in Leixlip on the Sunday of the All Ireland hurling final.

I think there is an important distinction to be made between someone who makes an honest mistake and someone who blatently doesnt pay for the parking ticket.

I paid the €3 all day parking ticket in Louisa Bridge car park in Leixlip, the ticket blew off the dash on to the floor of the car whilst closing the door.

I made an honest mistake, I forgot to check the ticket on the dash after I closed the door, it was lashing rain and my son and I were rushing to get the train to Croke Park.

I think a €125 de-clamp fee is very harsh, considering I have the €3 parking ticket (see attachment) and have emailed them a copy of it.

Is another €20 to the "Independent Parking Appeals Services (IPAS)" a waste of time and money???

P.C.

On that ticket it says: 'Display correctly/read instructions on reverse'

Did you do that?

jconn

Yes I displayed the ticket on the dash, yes it blew off and yes I made an honest mistake.

The question I am asking is has anyone else has been successful sin getting any kind of refund from this "Independent Parking Appeals Services (IPAS)"?

_Kaiser_

Have I not repeatedly read here that these private clamping companies are operating illegally as they have no legislative right to interfere with the movement of your car? The only exception to this is the County Councils?

Assuming this IS the case, then you can do what you want to remove the clamp yourself as long as you don't damage the device itself?

Wasn't someone here taking a legal case against one of these companies? Any word of what happened there?

mcullagh

I went to the Independent Appeals Board and won. I'll attach my appeal-it may be of some use. They clampers rely on you not bothering to appeal, but do!

They let me win my appeal on my first point...I had several. THe format changed a bit with the paste but See Below:


APPEAL OF APCOA PARKING FINE SERIAL No.
Driver Number:
Clamped Vehicle Reg: 4
Location:
Time:
Reason for Clamping: No/Invalid Resident Permit

I wish to appeal the above referenced parking fine, and request that the fine of €120 be returned in full.
REASON FOR APPEAL:
We were not a case of nuisance parking. We had the permission, and the parking permit, of the residents of whom we were visiting at the time of the alleged offence. The ‘REASON FOR MOBILIZATION’ was given as NO/INVALID RESIDENT PERMIT
I challenge this on the grounds that we did have a residents permit and, furthermore, it was valid. We were told it was incorrectly displayed by an APCOA representative, yet there were no stipulations at the parking area, or on the signs, as to what constitutes ‘acceptable display criteria.’ Consequently your signage is ‘not fit for purpose.’ I have included photographs of the parking area, and the nearest sign to that parking area to emphasise same.
Not having a valid parking permit and not displaying a valid parking permit (according to occult criteria) are not the same offence. The displaying of the permit is NOT listed under APCOA’s list of reasons for mobilisation, and consequently is not a reason for mobilisation. Since we should have not been immobilised, we should not have had to pay a release fine.
Even if the sign had a list of acceptable parking/permit-display criteria/conditions it would have constituted an offence to park one’s car to get out and read these conditions (and by default APCOA would be guilty of incitement to commit a parking offence). Perhaps there is an interest, on the part of APCOA, of wanting to ‘trap’ drivers with unclear parking criteria, which results in generated revenue from fines, and interest-free loans in the case of refunded fines. If this is the case then APCOA are guilty of deception and prevarication, and are in contravention of their own mission statement (www.apcoa.at/Mission-Statement-41ehtml accessed 31st Jan 2014) in which APCOA state that they aim:
‘at being the leading National and International consolidator in parking by…
Building the best team in the industry that shares APCOA’s core values, most importantly OPENESS, HONESTY, reliability…’
Given that the parking criteria were not fully and clearly disclosed, the money for the fine was extorted through deception and prevarication.
No criteria were observable from the car in that parking area. Therefore no full-knowledge decision could be made, by the driver, as to the suitability of the area as a parking spot, given the attendant criteria. The ten reasons for immobilization were not displayed anywhere.
APCOA relies on the threat of withholding the car until full payment is made, increasing fines with non-payment within a tight frame, and no deposit/payment options available to force drivers to find the fee at whatever personal cost. This, to me, constitutes menace.
Blackmail, extortion and demanding money with menaces (www.citizens information.ie/en/justice/criminal-law/criminal-offences/public-order-offences-in-ireland.htm accessed Jan 31st 2014) are covered by section 17 of the criminal justice (public order)act, 1994. This Act creates a new version of the blackmail and extortion offences which were previously contained in the Larceny Act, 1916. If a person makes an unwarranted demand with menaces for the purpose of making a gain for themselves or another or with the intention to cause a loss to another they will be guilty of this offence. The meaning of the word menace was defined in case-law under the old Larceny Act, 1916. In a case called Thorne-V-Motor Trade Association (1937)
‘The word menace is to be liberally construed, and not as limited to threats of violence but as to include threats of any action detrimental to or unpleasant to the person addressed’
The withholding of the use of car was certainly unpleasant and detrimental to her and her family, her friends and her classmates since:
She needed the car to collect her son from school
She needed her car to return equipment to her course storeroom
Being without her car would undermine her ability to return safely home
The incident caused her headaches and emotional upset
The incident embarrassed her, and her friends in , whom had given her their permit

The incident caused her embarrassment by forcing her into a position where she had
to disclose her financial status to her classmates and friends
The incident caused her further embarrassment by having to ask her classmates to pay
her fine

Withholding her car until she could pay the fine in full (no deposits, no instalment payments, no deferrals allowed regardless of means) constitutes menace.
The Eichmann-ian defence of the payment-in-full-irregardless policy adopted by APCOA (and enforced by its coached-employees) demonstrates a lack of moral responsibility.

But it is not just a moral responsibility that APCOA should consider. APCOA should also bear in mind the concept of equity, and its legal standing, which cannot be dismissed as easily dismissed as irrelevant to a profit-making venture.

The Foundations of Equity
Two maxims form the primary foundations of equity: Equity will not suffer an injustice and equity acts in personam. The first of these explains the whole purpose of equity, and the second highlights the personal nature of equity. Equity looks at the circumstances of the individuals in each case and fashions a remedy that is directed at the person of the defendant who must act accordingly to provide the plaintiff with the specified relief…It is said that these are the oldest two maxims of equity. All others are consistent with them.
Equity regards substance rather than form."
Equity will not permit justice to be withheld just because of a technicality. Formalities that frustrate justice will be disregarded and a better approach found for each case. Equity enforces the spirit rather than the letter of the law alone.
"Equity abhors a forfeiture."
A Forfeiture is a total loss of a right or a thing because of the failure to do something as required. A total loss is usually a rather stiff penalty. Unless a penalty is reasonable in relation to the seriousness of the fault, it is too harsh. In fairness and good conscience, a court of equity will refuse to permit an unreasonable forfeiture. This maxim has particularly strong application to the ownership of land, an interest for which the law shows great respect. Title to land should never be lost for a trivial reason— for example, a delay of only a few days in closing a deal to purchase a house…
Neither will equity disregard a contract provision that was fairly bargained. Generally it is assumed that a party who does most of what is required in a business contract and does it in a reasonable way, should not be penalized for the violation of a minor technicality. A contractor who completes work on a bridge one day late, for example, should not be treated as though he or she had breached the entire contract. If the parties, however, include in their agreement an express provision, such as time is of the essence, this means that both parties understand that performance on time is essential. The party who fails to perform on time would forfeit all rights under the contract. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=%22He+who+comes+into+equity+must+come+with+clean+hands.%22 (Page accessed 3rd Feb 2014)



Respectfully yours

( on behalf of car owner and , owner of Laser-card by which the fine was paid)

dr.fuzzenstein

^^^
The everything and the kitchen sink approach, eh?
I'm amazed they gave in to that appeal, you'd think a halfway decent legal counsel would have read as far as "extortion" and went "yep, headcase, throw it out"
Congrats anyway.

corktina

best "socking it to" since the Harper Valley PTA got it in the neck! (I too think you were lucky to get away with it!

Thismeanswar

NicolaTMNS wrote: »

Here's my recent story...

Paid Parking - have it in writing from parking company I paid but APCOA refusing refund!

5th July 2012 - Phoenix Park Train Station

Parked car and paid over the phone using credit card to parking company - ParkMagic. Received text confirming registration for parking with them and headed into the Stone Roses concert. Came back to find my car clamped. Rang APCOA (the crowd who clamped us) claiming I had in fact paid for parking. Damien told me my reg plate was on their system alright but that it had an extra digit 3 at the end of it. Release fee €120 plus an extra €35 surcharge as it was after 10:30pm! Ludicrous! The lady beside me overheard my conversation and she was told the same story only she had a number 2 entered at the end of hers hence she was clamped too! To cut a long story short where I believe the problem lay in the payment option to be selected after reg plate entry on the phone system, we obviously appealed but were refused a refund based on Apcoa's 'fact' that we had not paid for parking. Since then I have in writing from ParkMagic that we had paid on the night and should not have been clamped. So where do I go from here? Just checked the Ombudsman's site and I'm not sure they cover clamping companies. I have written letters to all newspaper editors, one radio and tv program relaying my story. We even rang the Gardaí on the night who didn't want to know. I will continue with this until I get justice as I feel innocent til proven guilty does not apply in APCOA's 'jurisdiction'. Sending me a photo of our clamped car saying it was parked in an unpaid bay while I have in writing from the parking company that we were paid up is really Apcoa taking the law into their own hands. I'm not impressed and will make every effort to bring this to the public attention.

Hi Nicola TMNS i have gone through the same thing...clamped by APCOA even though I had paid because they said there was an 'x' at the end of my number plate! It was obviously an error on the part of ParkMagic and APCOA and the money for parking was taken from my account but they would not remove the clamp until I paid 125 quid. I am furious! I am going to fight this all the way, could you pm me with details of how you went about getting a refund? Would really appreciate it

Sh1tbag OToole

Slightly off topic but does anyone know if these are any good? http://www.makitauk.com/product/saws/bandsaws/bpb180z-18v-lxt-portable-band-saw.html

paddydriver

Thismeanswar wrote: »

Hi Nicola TMNS i have gone through the same thing...clamped by APCOA even though I had paid because they said there was an 'x' at the end of my number plate! It was obviously an error on the part of ParkMagic and APCOA and the money for parking was taken from my account but they would not remove the clamp until I paid 125 quid. I am furious! I am going to fight this all the way, could you pm me with details of how you went about getting a refund? Would really appreciate it

NicolaTMNS likely just registered to vent off re her clamping experience at the time and likely has not been back since, that was in 2012. Your best bet is follow the same path as she did and reference examples of others having the same issue. Best of Luck with it!

Thismeanswar

paddydriver wrote: »

NicolaTMNS likely just registered to vent off re her clamping experience at the time and likely has not been back since, that was in 2012. Your best bet is follow the same path as she did and reference examples of others having the same issue. Best of Luck with it!

Thanks will do. I wouldnt mind if It was my fault but when its not its a bit hard to swallow!