More Clamping madness

Gary ITR

Well I was clamped (in the wrong) outside my apartment. We were informed that clamping had ceased in our complex and that permits were no longer being issued because they weren't required. Last week clamping started again without warning. For the purposes of this exercise I didn't tell NCPS I was clamped in the wrong not that it would have made any difference imo

So the following is my correspondence with them. Enjoy the read

A Chara

One of your immobilisation devices was attached to my vehicle on
Saturday morning last, 7/7/12. This is deemed illegal under section
113 of the road traffic Act, unauthorised interference with mechanism
of vehicle without reasonable cause. The Law Society of Ireland have
also said that in their opinion this is an illegal act.

So I have since removed the device myself and it is available for
collection at your earliest convenience. However there is a storage
fee of €25 per day and a removal fee of €50. So as of 8.30am 9/7/12
the current balance owing is €75.

My phone number and email are listed above should you wish to make
payment and collect the device.

If the device is not collected within 7 days it will be disposed of

Kind Regards

Gary

You currently owe €120 for the offence while parked illegally plus clamp damages if incurred.

Your mail below has been review and will be passed on to the Garda Síochána for follow up.

I can assure you that all vehicles immobilised are within the legal boundaries that apply to off-street car parking, all with contractual agreement with our clients.

All notice of terms and parking regulation are set out on signage throughout the car which gives those choosing to avail of parking on location an understanding of the full riggers of failure to comply.

As you have, by admission removed the clamp, presumably by criminal means then damage incurred while illegally removing the device will be imposed and sought, after review upon collection.

Furthermore, as you are now in possession of stolen property and using strangely compelling tactics to misappropriate money for stolen property, all further communications will be passed to the Gardaí for follow up.

Trust, we will be in contact with you shortly. However, if by, then you have chosen to dispose of the clamp as understood below, subsequently we will seek compensation on the back of this correspondence, which sets out your purpose and intent.

I can be contacted via mobile set out below for further resolve.

Hi Ray

You mention I owe €120 for an offence, you are aware that for something to be an offence it must be illegal under a section of legislation. For example, interfering with the mechanism of a vehicle is illegal under section 113 of the road traffic act.
Also your assumption that I have damaged the clamp is a little off the mark, in fact I found it incredibly easy to remove without causing any damage to my vehicle or your device.

My mail has been sent for review? I have no issue with that, I will be reporting the illegal interference with my vehicle to the Gardai now that I have an actual name to give them rather than a company name.

You say you can assure me that all vehicles are immobilised within legal boundaries, may I remind you of the findings of the Law Society of Ireland? And may I yet again refer to section 113 0f the RTA? A sign does not allow a person to break the law. The fact you have a contractual agreement with a client or number of clients does not entitle you or anybody else to break any laws.

Moving on to your presumption that I have removed the clamp by causing criminal damage is as I said earlier way off the mark, also by immobilising my vehicle I am entitled to remove the device by any means necessary but for the purposes of keeping good faith and relations between me and my customer, which you are as you are availing of my storage I removed it without causing any harm. Also could you point me to the section of legislation which covers the 'illegal removal' of your device, I can't seem to find it in the statute book.

Furthermore you will find I am not in possession of stolen property, you or one of your employees working under your orders placed it in my possession when attaching it to my vehicle, I am being obligent by simply making it available for collection under certain terms, I am offended at your accusation of theft. I fail to see how I am using 'compelling tactics', your attempt to gain money by illegally immobilising my vehicle could be called extortion tactics could they not?

I do trust you will be in contact soon. If the 7 days are up and you are still deciding to dispute the charges owed to me for my service I will hold on to the device until this is resolved but the storage fee will rise by €5 every 7 days. So from Monday of Next week it will become €30 every day and the following week it will rise to €35 every day and so on

As of today the charge stands at €100 which is broken down as follows

Removal fee €50
Storage @ €25 per day x 2 days €50

If these fees remain unpaid I will be seeking a judgement against NCPS for the full amount.

I accept cheque, credit card, debit card or cash.

Should you choose to pay by cheque the device will not be released until the cheque has cleared but I will store the device free of charge while waiting for the funds to clear.

I look forward to your response and prompt payment, I would hate for this to have to be dragged through the courts but if needs must that is the path I will go down

Kindest Regards

Hi Gary


Please email me your phone number as it was not in your first email and your full postal address and the EN/ vehicle registration number in relation to your offence.


Kindest regards

Hi Ray

I am happy to deal with this via email

Also you have not answered any of the questions I asked and can I yet
again remond you that for something to be an offence it must break a
section of legislation. Also only a member of an Garda Siochana can
deal with an offence and not a private company.

When you agree to pay the fee owed to me I will inform you where the
device can be collected, the number supplied on your notice is no
longer needed as it has already been removed.

Kind Regards

Gary,

This please consider this matter closed if you are not willing to provide the information requested.

Hi Ray
The matter cannot be closed as there is an outstanding bill owed to me. Also as I said the gardai have been informed of the illegal interference with my vehicle.
From your refusal to acknowledge anything I have said it is clear to see you have no answers to the questions posed.
Kind regards

godtabh

What did the gardai saw when you told them the story?

Have they just given up on their clamp?

Anan1

Gary ITR wrote: »

Well I was clamped (in the wrong) outside my apartment. We were informed that clamping had ceased in our complex and that permits were no longer being issued because they weren't required. Last week clamping started again without warning.

Isn't your issue with the management company so?

godtabh

Anan1 wrote: »

Isn't your issue with the management company so?

The management company didnt clamp him

Gary ITR

Anan1 wrote: »

Isn't your issue with the management company so?

My issue is with the person that put the clamp on my vehicle, I have also been in contact with the management company regarding this matter

Anan1

godtabh wrote: »

The management company didnt clamp him

Well they kind of did, if they told him that clamping was being withdrawn and then reintroduced it without notice. The clampers only do what their employer (ie the management company) tell them to do.

Gary ITR wrote: »

My issue is with the person that put the clamp on my vehicle, I have also been in contact with the management company regarding this matter

Sure that's only one step up from blaming the clamp. Ultimately, the directors of your management company are the people who decided to clamp you. You need to go after them.

godtabh

Anan1 wrote: »

Well they kind of did, if they told him that clamping was being withdrawn and then reintroduced it without notice. The clampers only do what their employer (ie the management company) tell them to do.

From my experience of clamping companies they could have easily done it off their own bat.

Once had an issue were one company lost their contract but still clamped while another company had the contract. Lead to a lot of confusion!

Anan1

godtabh wrote: »

From my experience of clamping companies they could have easily done it off their own bat.

Once had an issue were one company lost their contract but still clamped while another company had the contract. Lead to a lot of confusion!

The management company employ the clampers, so the MC are responsible for their actions.

Gary ITR

Anan1 wrote: »

Well they kind of did, if they told him that clamping was being withdrawn and then reintroduced it without notice. The clampers only do what their employer (ie the management company) tell them to do.Sure that's only one step up from blaming the clamp. Ultimately, the directors of your management company are the people who decided to clamp you. You need to go after them.

They didn't kind of... NCPS drove in here and clamped my vehicle not the management company. I'm not bothered getting into a back and forth with you tbh so I won't be replying further to any comment you have to make

jhegarty

Anan1 wrote: »

The management company employ the clampers, so the MC are responsible for their actions.

Just following orders is no excuse if you break a law.

So the op is well within his rights to report this.

Gary ITR

godtabh wrote: »

From my experience of clamping companies they could have easily done it off their own bat.

Once had an issue were one company lost their contract but still clamped while another company had the contract. Lead to a lot of confusion!

From my digging this isn't far off whats going on here

Anan1

jhegarty wrote: »

Just following orders is no excuse if you break a law.

So the op is well within his rights to report this.

I'm not saying he's not. I'm saying that he should go after the people who decided that he be wrongly clamped, rather than the person who affixed the clamp.

kildare.17hmr

The person who interfered with the car without proper authority under section 113 of the RTA is the clamper. The clamping company and management company should also be held accountable.

Vicxas

Well done mate, I wish I had the knowledge or balls to go toe to toe with these criminals.

Anan1

Gary ITR wrote: »

From my digging this isn't far off whats going on here

If that is what happened then i'd be going after the MC for damages for being denied the use of my car.

hidinginthebush

I usually love to get all high and mighty and toe the "well you shouldn't have parked illegally in the first place" line in these threads, but I loved reading the series of exchanges. Well done mate! How much do they owe you now for removal and storage?

bmstuff

It is funny to see how easily they can give up their clamp and professional fees once they have been slapped in the face with the truth. Well done OP.
It really is extortion, pure and simple.

ION08

Did you compose those emails yourself or did you use a template / copy&paste from some where?

Either way, RESPECT

ShadowHearth

On next motor meet ( if we getting one ) I am buying you a pint or a can to bring home!

When I grow up I want to be just like you!

romperstomper

still don't understand why if clamping is not covered under ANY legislation, then surely we can all park wherever we like - provided we either have the necessary skills in lockpicking or keep a bolt cutters in the boot?

further to the above, it might even become a lucrative source of income should one accumulate enough clamps forcing the clampers to pay the fee to release the clamps

Gary ITR

ION08 wrote: »

Did you compose those emails yourself or did you use a template / copy&paste from some where?

I composed them myself

romperstomper

romperstomper wrote: »

still don't understand why if clamping is not covered under ANY legislation, then surely we can all park wherever we like - provided we either have the necessary skills in lockpicking or keep a bolt cutters in the boot?

further to the above, it might even become a lucrative source of income should one accumulate enough clamps forcing the clampers to pay the fee to release the clamps

the issue is private clamping vs clamping on public roads as far as i know

stealthyspeeder

Anan1 wrote: »

The management company employ the clampers, so the MC are responsible for their actions.

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm not saying he's not. I'm saying that he should go after the people who decided that he be wrongly clamped, rather than the person who affixed the clamp.

Anan1 wrote: »

If that is what happened then i'd be going after the MC for damages for being denied the use of my car.

If I employ a comapny to do a task, and the company perform an illegal action whilst doing that task, I have not broken the law, the company I have employed has, and they should be held accountable.

The management company have employed NCPS to ensure that residents have parking. NCPS are breaking the law by clamping. So on a small scale, your issue is with your managment company for employing people who have acted illegally, however in the bigger picture, and the root cause is with the clamping company.

Gary ITR

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Gary ITR wrote: »

I composed them myself

Its brilliant in any case Gary! Kudos to you for sticking it up to those clowns. Slightly OT but are you going to the Vee Festival in Mondello on the 21st/22nd?

Might do... you racing?

Mech1

Well done Gary!

rebel.ranter

One thing I don't understand is that you say you provided a contact number number but they have asked you for it subsequently in a follow up mail. The you state you're happy to deal with this via email & once resolved you'll provide your phone number.
So which was it? Do they have a contact number for you?

Sorry for being pedantic, I believe you were correct in your approach given that the circumstances were that clamping was re-introduced without notice.

Eventually though cases like these will lead to private clamping being legalised, that's normally how things work in this country. i.e. Arseways.

Bogger77

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

If I employ a comapny to do a task, and the company perform an illegal action whilst doing that task, I have not broken the law, the company I have employed has, and they should be held accountable.

so if I was employed as bus driver, and the company schedule me to drive from Galway to Dublin, in a time that's not possible to do without speeding, you're saying that my employer's, but not me, are responsible for my speeding and other possible driving offenses such as dangerous driving, etc?

If my employer orders me to do an illegal task, during the course of my work, then I'm responsible for the legal consequences, they may also be responsible, but the person committing the act is primarily responsible for the act being committed

sligono1

Fair play OP and i say more of this sort of treatment for the clampers by every one,you get no where unless you stand up for yourself.

Gary ITR

rebel.ranter wrote: »

One thing I don't understand is that you say you provided a contact number number but they have asked you for it subsequently in a follow up mail. The you state you're happy to deal with this via email & once resolved you'll provide your phone number.
So which was it? Do they have a contact number for you?

Sorry for being pedantic, I believe you were correct in your approach given that the circumstances were that clamping was re-introduced without notice.

Eventually though cases like these will lead to private clamping being legalised, that's normally how things work in this country. i.e. Arseways.

I initially used their contact form, for some reason it wouldn't send, my number was on that. When I mailed directly I forgot to include it which turned out to be a good thing

kildare.17hmr

No harm giving the number anyway now, if they ring tell them you will only discuss it through mail or tell them you are recording the call

Bogger77

Gary ITR wrote: »

I initially used their contact form, for some reason it wouldn't send, my number was on that. When I mailed directly I forgot to include it which turned out to be a good thing

buy a "burn fone" sim, a pay as you go sim, give them that number. Once issue has been resolved, dump the sim.

Anan1

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

If I employ a comapny to do a task, and the company perform an illegal action whilst doing that task, I have not broken the law, the company I have employed has, and they should be held accountable.

The management company have employed NCPS to ensure that residents have parking. NCPS are breaking the law by clamping. So on a small scale, your issue is with your managment company for employing people who have acted illegally, however in the bigger picture, and the root cause is with the clamping company.

This might make sense, if the OP wants to go to court seeking a judgement on the legality or otherwise of clamping. Meanwhile, the management company are paid (either directly or indirectly) by the OP to run the apt complex and they've had the OP wrongly clamped. Rather than fluting around with clamps and borrowing pry bars and the rest, i'd force responsibility for this where it belongs - on the MC. As soon as he saw the clamp, OP should have called the MC and told them that, if it wasn't removed FOC within the hour, he'd be getting a rental car at their expense until it was. All this is assuming of course that the main priority is to get the clamp off the car ASAP and without charge.

ShadowHearth

Anan1 wrote: »

This might make sense, if the OP wants to go to court seeking a judgement on the legality or otherwise of clamping. Meanwhile, the management company are paid (either directly or indirectly) by the OP to run the apt complex and they've had the OP wrongly clamped. Rather than fluting around with clamps and borrowing pry bars and the rest, i'd force responsibility for this where it belongs - on the MC. As soon as he saw the clamp, OP should have called the MC and told them that, if it wasn't removed FOC within the hour, he'd be getting a rental car at their expense until it was. All this is assuming of course that the main priority is to get the clamp off the car ASAP and without charge.

Dude. At least once in your life can you be not a party pooper?!

ballooba

Bogger77 wrote: »

If my employer orders me to do an illegal task, during the course of my work, then I'm responsible for the legal consequences, they may also be responsible, but the person committing the act is primarily responsible for the act being committed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability

listermint

Gary, much plaudits for this, it made for great reading. And well done for the interaction.





Virtual beer >>>>>

Anan1

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Dude. At least once in your life can you be not a party pooper?!

So telling the OP how to get the clamp off FOC and with no effort is being a party pooper? What exactly is the goal here?

ION08

Gary ITR wrote: »

I composed them myself

That's very impressive.

I'll say it again, RESPECT, I tip my hat to you.

You should look into becoming a solicitor

listermint

Anan1 wrote: »

So telling the OP how to get the clamp off FOC and with no effort is being a party pooper? What exactly is the goal here?

ZZZzzzzz, that is not what your doing. Being pedantic doesnt make for good reading.

Not surprisingly the OP chose not to continue interaction through your line of posts.

Atlantic Dawn

Gary you are a legend. You should mail them in a couple of weeks telling them that if your fee isn't payed within 30 days the clamp will be auctioned on Boards.ie. I will start the bidding at 99c, would make a nice clamp for my trailer.

Marcusm

Anan1 wrote: »

Well they kind of did, if they told him that clamping was being withdrawn and then reintroduced it without notice. The clampers only do what their employer (ie the management company) tell them to do.Sure that's only one step up from blaming the clamp. Ultimately, the directors of your management company are the people who decided to clamp you. You need to go after them.

I agree with you on most things on this topic; however, the professional clamping company should establish on taking on a new or renewed engagements that the appropriate procedures have been put in place. Mere assertions from a managing agent (the mc is probably only the company directors) should not be sufficient. I think he should pursue both routes. I suspect NCPS has backed down if they have established that the residents had not been given sufficient warning. They may have chosen to write off that particular clamp rather than refunding any other decamping fees which might have been dubious.

(Taking OP's statements as fact rather than doubting the lack of pre notification.)

Marcusm

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

If I employ a comapny to do a task, and the company perform an illegal action whilst doing that task, I have not broken the law, the company I have employed has, and they should be held accountable.

The management company have employed NCPS to ensure that residents have parking. NCPS are breaking the law by clamping. So on a small scale, your issue is with your managment company for employing people who have acted illegally, however in the bigger picture, and the root cause is with the clamping company.

It's called vicarious liability - you can be responsible for the actions of your agent.

Gary ITR

Marcusm wrote: »

Anan1 wrote: »

Well they kind of did, if they told him that clamping was being withdrawn and then reintroduced it without notice. The clampers only do what their employer (ie the management company) tell them to do.Sure that's only one step up from blaming the clamp. Ultimately, the directors of your management company are the people who decided to clamp you. You need to go after them.

I agree with you on most things on this topic; however, the professional clamping company should establish on taking on a new or renewed engagements that the appropriate procedures have been put in place. Mere assertions from a managing agent (the mc is probably only the company directors) should not be sufficient. I think he should pursue both routes. I suspect NCPS has backed down if they have established that the residents had not been given sufficient warning. They may have chosen to write off that particular clamp rather than refunding any other decamping fees which might have been dubious.

(Taking OP's statements as fact rather than doubting the lack of pre notification.)

The information.in the op is the only info ncps have been given. Up until now they had no idea what part of the country I was in

conzy

This is excellent!

TestTransmission

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Dude. At least once in your life can you be not a party pooper?!

listermint wrote: »

ZZZzzzzz, that is not what your doing. Being pedantic doesnt make for good reading.

Not surprisingly the OP chose not to continue interaction through your line of posts.

Can we please not go here again or else I'll just close the thread.

Anan1

Marcusm wrote: »

I agree with you on most things on this topic; however, the professional clamping company should establish on taking on a new or renewed engagements that the appropriate procedures have been put in place. Mere assertions from a managing agent (the mc is probably only the company directors) should not be sufficient. I think he should pursue both routes. I suspect NCPS has backed down if they have established that the residents had not been given sufficient warning. They may have chosen to write off that particular clamp rather than refunding any other decamping fees which might have been dubious.

(Taking OP's statements as fact rather than doubting the lack of pre notification.)

OP seems to think that the clampers lost their contract but continued clamping regardless. The clamp's off now anyway, but IMO the easiest & fastest way to remove it would have been to call the MA, tell them he needed the car and that if it wasn't declamped immediately then he'd rent a car and hold them liable for costs. It's easy, it's free, and it means that those clampers are unlikely to return.

Marcusm

Gary ITR wrote: »

The information.in the op is the only info ncps have been given. Up until now they had no idea what part of the country I was in

That's certainly interesting; can understand them giving up in the circumstances you describe but just to give up without knowing of management company screw ups is surprising. I an imagine that the clamp itself is relatively inexpensive but still.

What action, if any, have you taken to ensure it does not recur?

In any circumstance, I doubt that you could ever successfully recover the storage charge, it might be worth placing a note to this effect on your car!

lovelyhurler

That's brightened up my day no end

Well done Gary - mails well put together - kept calm and reasonible.

LEGEND :cool:

dgt

Anan1 wrote: »

OP seems to think that the clampers lost their contract but continued clamping regardless. The clamp's off now anyway, but IMO the easiest & fastest way to remove it would have been to call the MA, tell them he needed the car and that if it wasn't declamped immediately then he'd rent a car and hold them liable for costs. It's easy, it's free, and it means that those clampers are unlikely to return.

Can you actually do that? Would they actually pay up?

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

and that if it wasn't declamped immediately then he'd rent a car and hold them liable for costs.

Yeah like that's going to work :rolleyes:

Yawns

All well and good Anan but I think the OP was trying to prove that private clamping companies have no legal hold whatsoever and that the exchanges between themselves and the OP kind of proves it.

The clamping company had no idea which clamp, car, carpark or county that the letter was about. It could have been a carpark in Naas or Galway. It was more of a point that they have no legal backing whether they have the owners permission to clamp in a carpark or not. If more poeple knew about this, then they would challenge them all the time and thus maybe force some regulation upon the clampers.

Anan1

dgt wrote: »

Can you actually do that? Would they actually pay up?

They wouldn't let it come to that, they'd call NCPS and that clamp would be gone.