Clamped in my own parking space

P. Breathnach

There is something about clamping that trips a number of people into keyboard warrior mode. For some reason, people do not get as exercised about obstructive parking or occupying somebody else's assigned place. I am in a minority, because those practices vex me more than does clamping.

I have some sympathy with OP: it's a classic situation where discretion is the greater part of valour. But there is one little thing that I think worth asking: why did the permit fall off the windscreen? Was it a case where it did not have the right adhesive properties? If so, I would be having words with the management company.

TheChizler

cookie1977 wrote: »

Victor wrote: »

Based on the 'traffic cone in front of my house' brigade, those people would clamp people for parking in 'their' (not) parking spaces.

How I hate that! I pay my taxes like everyone else so the "road" is as much mine as it iss yours. Grrrr

Well the law does state that you can't block access to someone's property without their permission.

Pawwed Rig

Victor wrote: »

Residents don't have training in when to / not clamp and more importantly don't know how to deal with people that have been clamped.

Based on the 'traffic cone in front of my house' brigade, those people would clamp people for parking in 'their' (not) parking spaces.

I am sure someone in the MC could do the 1 hour training course that the private clampers do? Seriously put a clamp on, Take a couple of photos, leave a sticker on the window. When person turns up check their story, if they are genuine take the clamp off, if they are not genuine then give them a lecture about responsible parking and let them off. Therefore no extortion, person might get message after wasting, say an hour, of his time and everyone goes away happy.

At one stage in this thread the OP was saying his charges were being increased on a daily rate. Statrted at 125 and was up at 300+ at one stage. The MC is to blame for inviting these guys onto the premisis. As he is part of the MC then he is to blame or if he voted against it then claim off the mgt company

jd

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I am sure someone in the MC could do the 1 hour training course that the private clampers do?

And have this one owner on call 24x7? The nature of OMCs is that they contract out most of the things they have to do.

Dionysius2

Does anybody know iif the clampering companies keep a list of persistent parking space offenders in private parking complexes ?

Pawwed Rig

jd wrote: »

And have this one owner on call 24x7? The nature of OMCs is that they contract out most of the things they have to do.

Which is not the point really.
The point is that the OP and the rest of the MC invited a group of unregulated persons onto their premisis to enable them the extort money from the residents and their visitors. If they want a deterant then it is easy to do as I pointed out. Anyone can put on a clamp and take it off if that is what the MC REALLY want to do. If they can't be bothered doing it themselves then the natural result is residents getting huge fines and their personal (property) vehicles disabled.
It would be simple for the MC to lay down ground rules for the clampers which they seemingly didn't bother to do in this case instead allowing them free reign.

Dionysius2 wrote: »

Does anybody know iif the clampering companies keep a list of persistent parking space offenders in private parking complexes ?

They know where they are most likely to make money if that is your question.

Mikros

No I only paid the initial €120. I'm sure the 24 hour increasing charge is just an "encouragement" to get people to pay. I don't agree with an increasing fee at all because I'm sure some people would be very distressed over having to come up with the money under pressure like that.

The sticker is wrecked because I have been swapping it a lot between a few different cars. I was in in rush at the time and just sort of slapped it in the general direction of the window. If I paid any attention at the time it would have stayed, i'm not disputing the sticker issue.

It is not practical to have the MC do the clamping and expect resident(s) to be on call 24/7 for free. Employing someone to be on call would be a significant cost also. Then you have to think about accepting payment - cash only is useless for someone stuck without their car to get to an ATM. I could fill a page with reasons...

Pawwed Rig

Yes it is a common tactic from clampers to keep upping the bill so that victims will be scared and pay quickly in case the bill gets way too high. Otherwise known as intimidation. Glad to hear you did not allow them to intimidate you into paying. It is worth noting that Dublin City council clampers do not do this.

ex·tor·tion

Law . the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.



oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.

The fact that the MC is encouraging this practise and actively requested the company to do it would seem to me to be the main issue here. The blame lies souly with the MC and therefore yourself as a member of the MC.

I will remind you that in your first post mentioned extortion before you revealed you were actually a member of the MC. I really don't see the issue here? You hired the clampers, they clamped as per their agreement with MC (ie you) you paid they removed clamp. Not trying to be smart and say it is your own fault but if you guys hired them??

cookie1977

TheChizler wrote: »

Well the law does state that you can't block access to someone's property without their permission.

Ah I'm not talking about blocking a drive way. I've had that happen to me outside my house and I've had to leave notes because I can't drive in to my driveway. That's of course wrong. . I'm talking about people putting cones outside their walls (sometimes they don't have driveways) and thinking that they can do that because it's their house.

fasttalkerchat

cookie1977 wrote: »

Ah I'm not talking about blocking a drive way. I've had that happen to me outside my house and I've had to leave notes because I can't drive in to my driveway. That's of course wrong. . I'm talking about people putting cones outside their walls (sometimes they don't have driveways) and thinking that they can do that because it's their house.

I do this. I know it has no legal standing but hopefully someone will drive on rather than move the cone to park there. Where I live is really close to town so people will park there up to 6pm but at night the street is empty apart from residents.

If I'm coming home during the day for a shower and something to eat I might have a 10 minute walk to the next legal parking space.

Mikros

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I will remind you that in your first post mentioned extortion before you revealed you were actually a member of the MC. I really don't see the issue here? You hired the clampers, they clamped as per their agreement with MC (ie you) you paid they removed clamp. Not trying to be smart and say it is your own fault but if you guys hired them??

Yes I'm a member of the MC - that means I have one vote out of 200+ at an AGM held once a year. I am not involved in drawing up contracts. My issue was that a bit of common sense couldn't apply and once I showed I had a valid permit the clamp could not be removed. That and the "not our problem" attitude from clamping company, the €120 per 24 hour charge, the feeling that I was getting screwed over a mix up with a permit in my "own" parking space and in a development I'm paying €1600 a year fees in.

So as I've said before I'm now working with the MC to see what, if anything, can be done to stop it happening again.

I've tried to explain all the issues at play. Its a subject I think needs debate at a lot of levels. But I think my own particular incident in this thread has run it's course.

cookie1977

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I do this. I know it has no legal standing but hopefully someone will drive on rather than move the cone to park there. Where I live is really close to town so people will park there up to 6pm but at night the street is empty apart from residents.

If I'm coming home during the day for a shower and something to eat I might have a 10 minute walk to the next legal parking space.

I would imagine most people drive on. I've moved a few in my time.

fasttalkerchat

cookie1977 wrote: »

I would imagine most people drive on. I've moved a few in my time.

Thankfully it has never been moved although a few times I have had to park at an angle because someone was half in the space. Council were worse than useless so that's the best we can do.

Pawwed Rig

Mikros wrote: »

So as I've said before I'm now working with the MC to see what, if anything, can be done to stop it happening again.

I've tried to explain all the issues at play. Its a subject I think needs debate at a lot of levels. But I think my own particular incident in this thread has run it's course.

Fair enough. Hope you get some joy out of it from MC.
Hopefully they will think twice before allowing this kind of element access to the premises in future

Dionysius2

Mikros wrote: »

Yes I'm a member of the MC - that means I have one vote out of 200+ at an AGM held once a year. I am not involved in drawing up contracts. My issue was that a bit of common sense couldn't apply and once I showed I had a valid permit the clamp could not be removed. That and the "not our problem" attitude from clamping company, the €120 per 24 hour charge, the feeling that I was getting screwed over a mix up with a permit in my "own" parking space and in a development I'm paying €1600 a year fees in.

Without a doubt you have been hard done by when the bare facts as you outline them are evaluated. There is something fundamentally wrong with such a system and that imo can only be put right at source, ie by doing battle with the people who hired the clampers. But unless you are prepared to go out on a limb and make a complete cause celebre of your case with a significant knockon sanction for the management company then nothing will change. And what might that be ? If there are a goodly number of residents who are disenchanted with the clamping regime, could you organise a withholding of the annual mgt fee pending a more agreeable clamping arrangement ?

fasttalkerchat

Sorry OP, just one more question... do you actually own the space of just rent it?

cookie1977

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Sorry OP, just one more question... do you actually own the space of just rent it?

Based on the posts he doesn't own it outright but as an apartment owner has rights of use of the space.

fasttalkerchat

cookie1977 wrote: »

Based on the posts he doesn't own it outright but as an apartment owner has rights of use of the space.

That's what I assumed. If somehow the space was sold along with the apartment it would be interesting to see if there was a contractual stipulation allowing the management company to regulate use of/access to the parking space.

cookie1977

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's what I assumed. If somehow the space was sold along with the apartment it would be interesting to see if there was a contractual stipulation allowing the management company to regulate use of/access to the parking space.

That's an interesting point. I'm a director of an apartment complex and we were looking at whether or not we could use a clamping company to enforce payments of annual fees (we're a long way off from making a decision). I dont think we could as all our parking spaces are actually completely owned by the apt owners unlike the OPs situation. If the person did own the space (like the apartment) then before the sale could go through any debts would have to be paid from the sale.

Paulw

Dionysius2 wrote: »

If there are a goodly number of residents who are disenchanted with the clamping regime, could you organise a withholding of the annual mgt fee pending a more agreeable clamping arrangement ?

You will generally find that the vast majority of members of the management company are in favour of clamping. This is most commonly how clamping is brought in.

We brought in clamping for two reasons - 1) non-residents and non-visitors taking our parking spaces, and 2) to ensure payment of management fees.

Out of 112 units, I believe there were 3 complaints and objections to clamping.

Withholding payment of management fees is the worst thing you can do. If your fees are not paid, then you have no vote at an AGM, hence can't help change things. Also, then the management company has the ability to remove further services, even up to, and including, insurance. Also, non-payment of fees effects your neighbours, who then have to make up the amount you haven't paid, until your fees are fully paid. Hitting your neighbours if never a good idea, since if their fees are paid, they have a vote at an AGM.

Dionysius2

Paulw wrote: »

You will generally find that the vast majority of members of the management company are in favour of clamping. This is most commonly how clamping is brought in.

We brought in clamping for two reasons - 1) non-residents and non-visitors taking our parking spaces, and 2) to ensure payment of management fees.

Out of 112 units, I believe there were 3 complaints and objections to clamping.

Withholding payment of management fees is the worst thing you can do. If your fees are not paid, then you have no vote at an AGM, hence can't help change things. Also, then the management company has the ability to remove further services, even up to, and including, insurance. Also, non-payment of fees effects your neighbours, who then have to make up the amount you haven't paid, until your fees are fully paid. Hitting your neighbours if never a good idea, since if their fees are paid, they have a vote at an AGM.

That explanation is quite helpful to the overall situation regarding private property clamping. Good points, well made. Tks

Mikros

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Sorry OP, just one more question... do you actually own the space of just rent it?

I would have to look at the deeds on the leasehold to see the exact wording. I think the ownership rests with the management company but I get a exclusive licence to use it or some such wording.

My intention is not to get rid of clamping in the development. I wish we didn't need it, but with a train station just down the road the place would be overrun with people looking for free parking otherwise. It also gets people to pay up their management fees - which was a big problem in the past. We were in danger of getting into the nasty loop of people withholding fees because the service wasn't up to scratch, which meant the service deteriorated because there was no money, which caused more people to withhold fees, etc. etc.

What I want is a system that has a little bit of common sense. One of the options open is to pay a clamping company a flat fee and the "fines" go back to the MC. That way the MC would have complete control over the clamping as the clamping company is not making their money from release fees. The problem is again a cost one - will the fines cover the cost of the fixed contract?

the_syco

cookie1977 wrote: »

I dont think we could as all our parking spaces are actually completely owned by the apt owners unlike the OPs situation.

Do they own the apartments, or do they have a 1000 year (or something long like it) lease on them? I ask, as if it's the latter I wonder how you can own the parking space but not the apartment?

TheTurk1972

Mikros wrote: »

I would have to look at the deeds on the leasehold to see the exact wording. I think the ownership rests with the management company but I get a exclusive licence to use it or some such wording.

My intention is not to get rid of clamping in the development. I wish we didn't need it, but with a train station just down the road the place would be overrun with people looking for free parking otherwise. It also gets people to pay up their management fees - which was a big problem in the past. We were in danger of getting into the nasty loop of people withholding fees because the service wasn't up to scratch, which meant the service deteriorated because there was no money, which caused more people to withhold fees, etc. etc.

What I want is a system that has a little bit of common sense. One of the options open is to pay a clamping company a flat fee and the "fines" go back to the MC. That way the MC would have complete control over the clamping as the clamping company is not making their money from release fees. The problem is again a cost one - will the fines cover the cost of the fixed contract?

To me that means nobody else can park or put anything in that parking space - including a clamp - without your permission.

Mikros

TheTurk1972 wrote: »

To me that means nobody else can park or put anything in that parking space - including a clamp - without your permission.

A view I would have a lot of time for. However the argument was put to me that because it was voted in at the AGM and I am a member of the management company I have in fact given permission. There may also be some general clause in the leasehold that allows the MC to regulate common areas or some such catch all. So it may not be as simple unfortunately.

cookie1977

the_syco wrote: »

Do they own the apartments, or do they have a 1000 year (or something long like it) lease on them? I ask, as if it's the latter I wonder how you can own the parking space but not the apartment?

People bought their apt and also had the option to buy a car park space (36,000 at the time). Some people from businesses located near the complex also bought the car park spaces and these do not also own apt. Some apt owners did not buy any spaces.

Re some of the other comments. I doubt very much that people could be excluded from votes at agm's (not that there's ever a lot to vote on) just because they haven't payed their management fees unless you've got that in the details of your agreement. Not sure about other apt complexes but we never get many turning up to our AGM's, in fact most times only 2 or 3 people excl our 6 directors turn up. Although we still thankfully have almost 95% compliance with maintenance fees payment. To encourage payment we send the usual barrage of letters until people go over 1000euro in debt then we go legal (issuing legal letters). To date we've only taken one court case (and gotten a judgement we cant serve for reasons I wont go in to) as most people agree to pay lump sums if we waive the interest and legal costs, which we do if they pay within 2 weeks.

I dont think I'd be in favour of bringing in clamping in our complex.

Paulw

cookie1977 wrote: »

I doubt very much that people could be excluded from votes at agm's (not that there's ever a lot to vote on) just because they haven't payed their management fees unless you've got that in the details of your agreement.

Not sure about other apt complexes but we never get many turning up to our AGM's, in fact most times only 2 or 3 people excl our 6 directors turn up. Although we still thankfully have almost 95% compliance with maintenance fees payment.

Most articles of association of management companies, and also the Lease Contracts state that you need to have your fees paid up before you can vote at an AGM. It's a normal clause in the vast majority of developments.

We have used it to exclude some members from voting, since they had outstanding fees due.

Also, most AGM require a quorum of members to attend. That number will depend on the size of the development. Ours, with 112 units has a quorum of 7. So, without 7 members attending then it's not an official AGM, and the meeting has to be postponed until a quorum is met. Thankfully that has never happened.

Sounds like you need to read your paperwork again, and check such clauses.

cookie1977

Paulw wrote: »

Most articles of association of management companies, and also the Lease Contracts state that you need to have your fees paid up before you can vote at an AGM. It's a normal clause in the vast majority of developments.

We have used it to exclude some members from voting, since they had outstanding fees due.

Also, most AGM require a quorum of members to attend. That number will depend on the size of the development. Ours, with 112 units has a quorum of 7. So, without 7 members attending then it's not an official AGM, and the meeting has to be postponed until a quorum is met. Thankfully that has never happened.

Sounds like you need to read your paperwork again, and check such clauses.

We would still have very few votes to put to the owners. What would you be voting on all the time. Our quorum would be met since the directors are owners. Plus a couple of owners who would attend. Our complex also only has 50 apts and a business.

Paulw

cookie1977 wrote: »

What would you be voting on all the time. Our quorum would be met since the directors are owners.

Ah ok so.

Voting on - the budget needs to be voted on every year. How the money is spent, how much fees we need to pay, etc. Other than that, issues like clamping, how best to deal with anti-social issue, how to deal with pet control issues, etc. There's always something to vote on. That's what an AGM is for.

cookie1977

Paulw wrote: »

Ah ok so.

Voting on - the budget needs to be voted on every year. How the money is spent, how much fees we need to pay, etc. Other than that, issues like clamping, how best to deal with anti-social issue, how to deal with pet control issues, etc. There's always something to vote on. That's what an AGM is for.

Yes but that's just day to day (year to year) stuff. Do you really think the non payers care about that sort of thing? I don't.