Unjustified clamping by council?

cormie

My friend asked me to put this up here. To me it looks like fair game to park in the little space he found. No yellow lines, no signs from what I can see to say he shouldn't park there and no obstruction seems to be caused either. I'm not exactly sure what street it's on but will try find out.

http://omg.wthax.org/IMG_20121103_121545.jpg
http://omg.wthax.org/IMG_20121103_121633.jpg
http://omg.wthax.org/IMG_20121103_130451.jpg

He got clamped anyway and has sent an appeal off but no response yet.

P.C.

You mentioned in your post that there are no signs that you can see, yet you put up a picture where the sign is clearly visible. There is enough of the car (even if it is only a tiny bit of the rear bumper) past the sign.

Condatis

The car appears to be blocking a shuttered exit. That could be a reason for a clamp.

ARGINITE

P.C. wrote: »

You mentioned in your post that there are no signs that you can see, yet you put up a picture where the sign is clearly visible. There is enough of the car (even if it is only a tiny bit of the rear bumper) past the sign.

TBH it doesn't look like the end of the bumper goes past the sign.

Condatis wrote: »

The car appears to be blocking a shuttered exit. That could be a reason for a clamp.

There is plenty of room between the car and the exit as shown in the second pic, unless people were going to leave the building by the window.

Anan1

I can't see any reason why he shouldn't park there either, but I might be missing something. What did the docket say?

corktina

It looks good to me....I got told to move by our local warden as I was partly on double yelows. I pointed out I was outside the no parking sign and the very next day, they came and moved the sign to co-incide with the lines.

Tell us what happens...

cormie

Thanks for the feedback folks. Looks ok to me too, it's not blocking the emergency exit and is pretty much flush with the pole for the sign pointing behind the car. I'll try find out what street it's on and what the docket said.

corktina, would double yellows alone not be enough to warrant that ticket you received?

djimi

cormie wrote: »

corktina, would double yellows alone not be enough to warrant that ticket you received?

Thats what I would have thought. Shouldnt matter where the sign is positioned (or indeed if there is even a sign); you are not allowed to park on double yellow lines regardless.

goz83

Looks like clean parking to me too. Plenty of space between the car and the exit. The car is also clear of the sign pointing to the no parking area. The sign is also partially covered by foliage, but can be seen I suppose. There are very few of these spots around and that one is particulary small.

Valetta

I wonder could there be another sign further up ahead of the car, the same as the one in the picture which would cover where the car is parked?

SuperGrover

If that's where I think it is, the laneway behind Bachelor's Walk, I used to park there sometimes in those 'no rules' spots. I'd always double-check, and sure enough, there was nothing to prohibit parking in some spots there.

Never got clamped or ticketed.

corktina

cormie wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback folks. Looks ok to me too, it's not blocking the emergency exit and is pretty much flush with the pole for the sign pointing behind the car. I'll try find out what street it's on and what the docket said.

corktina, would double yellows alone not be enough to warrant that ticket you received?

i got no ticket....

the signs and the lines have to correspond, in fact I believe the yellow lines have to have a termination bar at the end of them to be enforcible

Berty

I once asked about a loading bay in Limerick with Double Yellows in it because I was ticketed in it making a delivery. Few weeks ago the loading bay vanished and the Double Yellows remain.

Some bastards. :rolleyes:

CiniO

P.C. wrote: »

You mentioned in your post that there are no signs that you can see, yet you put up a picture where the sign is clearly visible. There is enough of the car (even if it is only a tiny bit of the rear bumper) past the sign.

Look at the paving stone line and where the sign is.
IMHO bumper is not behind the sign.

corktina

still will win on appeal though

mgbgt1978

corktina wrote: »

the signs and the lines have to correspond, in fact I believe the yellow lines have to have a termination bar at the end of them to be enforcible

...only in the UK Corky afaik. Certainly not over here anyway.

Marcusm

corktina wrote: »

i got no ticket....

the signs and the lines have to correspond, in fact I believe the yellow lines have to have a termination bar at the end of them to be enforcible

I don't think this is correct in Ireland - see below. But you are right that in the UK, this is one of the very frequent reasons why parking appeals are upheld. I get the impression that in Ireland a DJ would not even listen t o arguments like this.



Double Yellow Lines
15. Traffic sign number RRM 008 shall—

(a) indicate that parking of vehicles is prohibited at any time on that side of the roadway, and
(b) consist of two parallel continuous yellow lines approximately 100 millimetres apart extending along the edge of a roadway, each line being approximately 100 millimetres wide, and the line nearest the edge of the roadway being situated approximately 300 millimetres from that edge.

rameire

not trying to be stupid here,
but could it be classed as being parked on a footpath,
if you look at the cobble stones you can see a barrier line of two stones wide and the car is parked withing these stone lines.

cormie

Beer Baron wrote: »

I once asked about a loading bay in Limerick with Double Yellows in it because I was ticketed in it making a delivery. Few weeks ago the loading bay vanished and the Double Yellows remain.

Some bastards. :rolleyes:

It's ok to park on double yellow lines if actively loading/unloading a van providing you're not breaking any other ROTR (such a single white line in the centre of the road).

cormie

Here's the exact location on Google Street View:

http://goo.gl/maps/H16hB

bluecode

Google street view solves the problem. Jump up the street to JJ Lalor's premises. Just beside it almost hidden in the bush is a sign indicating no parking in either direction.

He hasn't a leg to stand on unless he was parked there on Sunday or outside the hours shown. The sign by the car indicates the point where no parking at any time starts. The other sign covers the area up to that point.

ARGINITE

bluecode wrote: »

Google street view solves the problem. Jump up the street to JJ Lalor's premises. Just beside it almost hidden in the bush is a sign indicating no parking in either direction.

He hasn't a leg to stand on unless he was parked there on Sunday or outside the hours shown. The fact that the other sign doesn't point to the left is neither here nor there. The other sign is clear enough.

Good to see you looked at the attached pics.
The third one shows the sign clearly, with only one arrow!

Kenny Logins

ARGINITE wrote: »

Good to see you looked at the attached pics.
The third one shows the sign clearly, with only one arrow!

So where does the arrow on the other (partially obscured) sign indicate?

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=abbey+street,+dublin&hl=en&ll=53.347703,-6.261429&spn=0.000467,0.000689&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.494074,79.013672&t=h&hq=abbey+street,&hnear=Dublin,+County+Dublin,+Ireland&layer=c&cbll=53.347703,-6.261429&panoid=NJffpOrFQOtw-0rTnjLHgw&cbp=12,337.84,,0,9.66&z=21

Our man in Havana

Both sides according to that link.

ARGINITE

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Both sides according to that link.

My mistake, it look like bluecode is right.

cormie

How far is that sign valid for though? I mean, why put another sign up beside where he parked if it covers the whole road, and when putting up the other sign, why not have it pointing both ways? Would the fact the one pointing both directions is covered up make it any less enforceable?

mooonpie

The sign shown in ARGINITE's pic is a "No Parking at any time" starting just behind (or almost just behind) the car. There is a pair for this sign almost at Bachelor's Way (the + in my crude diagram below)

The sign shown just up the street by J J Lalor is a "No Parking Mon to Sat 7am to 7pm" and it indicates that the zone is both sides of the sign. (the - in the 'diagram')

---

|---CAR|+++++++++++++|

Depending on the time, your mate has very little to argue OP (apart from the difficulty of seeing the fairly covered sign)

Wexfordian

cormie wrote: »

How far is that sign valid for though? I mean, why put another sign up beside where he parked if it covers the whole road, and when putting up the other sign, why not have it pointing both ways? Would the fact the one pointing both directions is covered up make it any less enforceable?

The first with two directions is time controlled, the second changes it from that point to at any time.

Grolschevik

cormie wrote: »

How far is that sign valid for though? I mean, why put another sign up beside where he parked if it covers the whole road, and when putting up the other sign, why not have it pointing both ways? Would the fact the one pointing both directions is covered up make it any less enforceable?

It seems that the two signs have different times on, allowing or disallowing parking at different times depending on which end of the street you're on (this is based on what someone above said; I can't be bothered to go looking on Streetview!).

If you look at the original pics in the OP, apart from a van that may be loading, all other cars are parked on the other side of the street. Probably for a very good reason.

Wexfordian

Grolschevik wrote: »

If you look at the original pics in the OP, apart from a van that may be loading, all other cars are parked on the other side of the street. Probably for a very good reason.

Yep, the signs saying fire brigade access...

Victor

Still parked within 5 metres of a junction.

Given the narrowness of the street, I think parking on both sides would be a substantial nuisance for deliveries, bin trucks and fire brigade.

CiniO wrote: »

Look at the paving stone line and where the sign is.
IMHO bumper is not behind the sign.

rameire wrote: »

not trying to be stupid here,
but could it be classed as being parked on a footpath,
if you look at the cobble stones you can see a barrier line of two stones wide and the car is parked withing these stone lines.

If you look at Google, that is a gutter.

one2one

Slightly OT, but how did your friend get out of his car? Seems very tight against that wall!

Stheno

one2one wrote: »

Slightly OT, but how did your friend get out of his car? Seems very tight against that wall!

They scooted across over the handbrake and out the passenger door of course!

cormie

Ah, the point about the different times makes sense alright, but usually what would be used to cancel the restrictions of such a sign? As in if there was a street 2km long with that sign at the top of the 2km and no other signs for 2km, how long would that sign be valid for if there was no further signage to indacte anything else and if you were to park at the bottom of the 2km area are you then expected to scan what could be an infinite length looking for a sign that states whether you can or can't park where you just parked? If you approach the space in the direction the car approached from, all you're seeing is a sign that says no parking the other way and you can't see the other sign at all really from that point.

Our man in Havana

There should be a corresponding road marking to go with the sign. A fresh sign and marking would be needed after each junction.

Wexfordian

I know where you are coming from with that in general, but in this case there are only three buildings between the signs, and there are 5 additional No Parking signs (well No Parking Pleas more accurately) in that distance!

EthicRanger

one2one wrote: »

Slightly OT, but how did your friend get out of his car? Seems very tight against that wall!

Ye, the efforts to park as close to wall and get out through passanger doors were smashed in to dust by clampers xe xe , isn't it?

Iwannahurl

Looks OK to me relative to where the sign is. I'm all for Zero Tolerance in terms of certain classes of illegal and obnoxious parking, but in this case (if the exact location is kosher) then the clampers were over-zealous IMO.

That said, it seems to be the only car parked on that side, which might be a clue.

cormie

So given the fact the sign covers where he is parked, would there be any point arguing that he couldn't see the sign? It's covered over heavily with branches, plus there doesn't seem to be any corresponding road markings?

Our man in Havana

It is worth arguing in court.

EthicRanger

Thread probably should start with this info to minimise guessing. But let it be later, than never. Thanks Cormie and others for you time and efforts.

So

Here is Original Immobilisations Notice:
http://www.wthax.org/image/77430


Nature of my Appeal-Complaint ( this is what i send to DSPS through email. Don't laugh, pls ) :

1) The main argument - sign is highly misleading or inapropriate. It shows arrow to one side. If you think, cars shouldn't park in to another side, WHY NOT TO ADD ANOTHER ARROW ON SAME SIGN?? (Photos added )

2) another misleading thing - no yellow lines or barely visible. I don't see them being proper in Google Street View picture, which was done on year 2009 either!

3) Their was A5 size sheet of paper with my mobile phone number with request to call near parking ticket. Number was always their in the car for last 2months (CCTV proof possible). Did clampers try to contact or at least made a photo of my number (you can't miss it) for your records (as you see it was near ticket) to support their case? i think no. very cooperative, isn't it?

4) Until we waited declampers (over an hour!), their were green Ford Focus with the A4 printed notice sheet (photo added) but no parking fee, claiming he is customer of hotel and waiting until free parking spot will be given. He was definately blocking gates. Yet I wasn't blocking anything. Ford Focus was on same lane at the same level as my car just at opposite side.

5) As i mentioned above ( in 4) ) The clamping wasn't released in up to 1 hour ( as it was said in your auto answering system) and no SMS was sent (about car is unclamped) as we were told through phone after we made payment! We called after 70min again. Yes after some time we went in near shop, thinking SMS will be a sign to come back. Or if de-clampers want, they can call to us.

6) Please consider, that The car Opel Corsa is very small itself and it wasn't blocking any doors ( you wouldn't clamp size of motorcycle car, aren't you? so please consider size), it wasn't peak working day and also car was parked as close as possible to concrete wall ( no chance for driver to get out... driver used passangers doors) not to disturb traffic. See photos.

7) Parking fee was paid (5Eur) and it was enough for another 55min after clamping.

8) No other signs on walls, which would suggest not to park in that place.

9) (Contraargument to DeClampers argument) Declampers mentioned there is a another sign in front, which has arrow to this side. Ok. Sorry sign is not visible, because it's not facing driver. Also street is narrow which makes harder see and of course, read my argument No. 1.

10) The parking price is too high for such a poor and dangerous to park lane

11) Other people around told, they parking in that place and they would park according signs they see and they recommended to appeal.



Here is (8th Nov) DSPS reply to (my email) appeal:
http://www.wthax.org/image/77432

i found it not fully answered. What you think?

So next step possible is independent Appeals Officier from Dublin Council.

Our man in Havana

Their original notice is a nonsense. "No parking sign" is not a contravention. Parked in a place prohibited is the correct wording.

I would take it all the way. You have nothing to lose now.

djimi

I would say that the only arguement that you might have is if the left hand sign is as obscured by growth as it appears on Google Maps. Otherwise its pretty clear cut to me; sign says no parking in either direction Mon-Sat 7-7 and you are parked in that zone in that time frame. By all means argue it but I dont really see what case you have.

Our man in Havana

Paperwork a complete mess!

djimi

Would it not be the same paperwork that is issued for every parking fine? If it was legally questionable then every parking fine would be struck off and they would have sorted it by now...

Our man in Havana

Nope. Most people would not know the correct wording of the alleged offence. What they have specified is not an actual offence. If they can't get the basics right they will lose in court.

I speak as a former traffic warden who drafted summonses for parking offences.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

CRM Ireland

How far is a driver expected to walk in either direction of his car to check if there is a sign? I know in this case there was another sign further along, but it seems partially obscured and that could be a get out.

Also from the 3rd photo in the original post, you can see the remnants of what wouldve been yellow lines. On Google Earth they are a little bit more visible, but only just. They have not been maintaining the painted lines.

On a purely legal point, to be contravening the law, must the car actually be within the area marked with double yellow lines, or is the information on the sign sufficient for prosecution? If there MUST be yellow lines, they dont have a leg to stand on as they have not made it clear enough.

Im taking a guess here, but I think with the evidence in hand that the judge would most likely accept that the OP had grounds for confusion as it was certainly not absolutely clear what the parking rules were for this particular spot. I would hope that the judge would throw the case out and order the party responsible to ensure they do not bring further cases to him without having painted the lines on the road.

cormie

Interesting responses given the fact he was indeed in violation. Would be interesting to see what would happen if it went to court. If he loses, what could he expect to happen? Double fine etc?

Our man in Havana

Nothing. He has already paid.

cormie

Ah of course, forgot about that. So is it a case for the small claims court I wonder?