Clamping to be regulated

bigneacy

New laws are on the way to regulate the clamping industry.
Under the proposals, which have been agreed by the Cabinet, there would be a cap on how much motorists can be charged for the release of their vehicles clamped on private lands.
However, a ban on clamping vehicles parked in the grounds of hospitals, which was recommended by a Dáil committee, is not being introduced.
The heads of the Bill are due to be published tomorrow by Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar, who said they would eliminate rogue operators.
There is no legislation covering clamping on private property, such as hospitals, colleges, clubs and apartment blocks.
Fees on private lands average between €80-€120.
Customers will be be able to appeal decisions to the National Transport Authority.
The new measures are due to come into force later this year.

So it seems the private clamping industry is going to be reigned in. Hopefully whatever legislation will include a criminal record check of some kind also.

On the flip side, the industry will no longer be a 'legal grey area'- so presumably this will mean that clamp release fees, and the costs of damaging a clamp will be enforceable in a court of law? Gone will be the days of the con-saw/angle-grinder super-hero!

News here: http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0410/380765-clamping/

Guy:Incognito

Never understood the big issue people had with clamping in hospital grounds as some sort of special case. Some of the worst parking you'll see happens in hospital grounds. And im not talking about someone rushing a loved one to a&e.

Some ignorant ****ers deserve to have their cars crushed for the way they abandon them in hospitals like they are emergency organ transplant ambulances, nevermind clamped.

mickdw

This is a sad day for motorists I feel. Much the same clamping activity but with access to vehicle ownership records by private clampers in some cases. There was a guy on the news saying it gave them another avenue for collecting penalty seeing that they can access ownership info. He also broadly welcomed the changes.
I get the impression that the minister is an idiot but maybe im missing something.

frozenfrozen

If someone wearing a hoodie walks up to your clamped car and cuts off the clamp and hides it, I can't see anyone getting in trouble...
It's a release fee anyway, meaning the price is there to cover the cost of the labour of removing a clamp, if you do it yourself and don't damage the clamp then how could you possibly incur this cost?

Guy:Incognito

mickdw wrote: »

This is a sad day for motorists I feel. Much the same clamping activity but with access to vehicle ownership records by private clampers in some cases. There was a guy on the news saying it gave them another avenue for collecting penalty seeing that they can access ownership info. He also broadly welcomed the changes.
I get the impression that the minister is an idiot but maybe im missing something.

Maybe it will force people to actually obey the rules when using someone elses land?similar to the way most people would expect others to behave on theirs. Seems to only work one way most of the time though.......

mickdw

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Maybe it will force people to actually obey the rules when using someone elses land?similar to the way most people would expect others to behave on theirs. Seems to only work one way most of the time though.......

Maybe but we all know that these thugs need are out of control and are extorting money from innocent motorist too in nany cases. Giving them access to car ownership records should really be resisted. I would certainly hope strict background checks are required for all persons involved in the business as giving out personal details to thugs really is not acceptable in any circumstance.
They do say limited access to these records would be provided. Whats the possibility that ownership details will be given out in cases where clamp disappeared?
Im guessing the clampers are laughing their asses off tonight.

Guy:Incognito

mickdw wrote: »

Maybe but we all know that these thugs need are out of control and are extorting money from innocent motorist too in nany cases. Giving them access to car ownership records should really be resisted. I would certainly hope strict background checks are required for all persons involved in the business as giving out personal details to thugs really is not acceptable in any circumstance.
They do say limited access to these records would be provided. Whats the possibility that ownership details will be given out in cases where clamp disappeared?
Im guessing the clampers are laughing their asses off tonight.

They've never extorted a penny from me in my 14 years of driving. I have a very clever way of foiling them. Its linked to my last post......... :-)

Gran Hermano

Access to ownership details would be irrelevant if we experienced the French answer to clampers whereby random members of the public began super gluing clamps shut. It ended up with clamping not being cost effective with all the hassle to clampers.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

mickdw

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They've never extorted a penny from me in my 14 years of driving. I have a very clever way of foiling them. Its linked to my last post......... :-)

Never clamped me either but I would assume if I lived in an apartment complex with clamping in operation, I most likely would have been clamped many times as the amount of hoops they want you to jump through all the while being more on the side of extorsion that fairness would have caught me out no doubt. The parking on private land argument doesnt stand either when talking about parking at apartment complexes.

_Kaiser_

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You'll find that one of our ministers, some relative or mate of his owns or has a big part in one of the major companies

djimi

The key part of that is the appeals process. If that is set up properly and is effective and efficient then it will go a long way to sorting the problem. There is no issue with clamping as a concept; the issue arises in this country because the clampers can act as they please, and once they have your money have no real incentive to give it back, no matter how wrong they might be. A proper functioning independent appeals process would go a long way to sorting that.

_Kaiser_

djimi wrote: »

The key part of that is the appeals process. If that is set up properly and is effective and efficient then it will go a long way to sorting the problem. There is no issue with clamping as a concept; the issue arises in this country because the clampers can act as they please, and once they have your money have no real incentive to give it back, no matter how wrong they might be. A proper functioning independent appeals process would go a long way to sorting that.

Alas, having been born and lived in Ireland for almost 40 years now, I've highlighted the instant problems I can see with that idea. These words aren't known to our governing bodies.

Guy:Incognito

djimi wrote: »

. There is no issue with clamping as a concept; .

Maybe not from you but there clearly is from plenty of others here. Theres been plenty of people on getting advice and offers of help cutting off clamps when they are clearly in the wrong and admit it but just dont feel like they should bother or have to pay.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Alas, having been born and lived in Ireland for almost 40 years now, I've highlighted the instant problems I can see with that idea. These words aren't known to our governing bodies.

They clearly aren't know to the general driving public either seeing as how many cant park properly so its everyone in it.

Theres clearly a culture of "**** others as long as im ok" and acting like its all the politicians ans bankers just shows it even more.

djimi

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Maybe not from you but there clearly is from plenty of others here. Theres been plenty of people on getting advice and offers of help cutting off clamps when they are clearly in the wrong and admit it but just dont feel like they should bother or have to pay.

Sadly there will always be those who feel that they are above any law/rule/regulation that you care to make. If clamping was properly operated and tightly regulated then these people wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

djimi

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Alas, having been born and lived in Ireland for almost 40 years now, I've highlighted the instant problems I can see with that idea. These words aren't known to our governing bodies.

Oh dont I know. The best we can probably expect is something like the PRTB where you lodge a complaint and expect to get a ruling maybe 6 months later if you are lucky...

MugMugs

If I was clamped and if I cut it off and hid it in my local canal, How could I be fined by the clampers for removal/damage?

recyclebin

I think the fine details of the oireachtas bill are being released today so we don't know yet who is liable if the clamp goes "missing".

listermint

recyclebin wrote: »

I think the fine details of the oireachtas bill are being released today so we don't know yet who is liable if the clamp goes "missing".

Surely it would still fall to the burden of proof. Afterall its one of the cornerstones of our quasi british legal system

A private company would still have to provide legitimate proof that it was removed by you. I cant see how ownership could be 'transferred' to your vehicle. Actually interestingly enough how is this handled by DCC with their 'legitimate' clamping.

Have DCC been challenged through the courts with existing legislation on property loss / damage ?

Haven't read the legislation, but how legal would it be to allow a private company access to a car owners information against the permission of the owner?

Surely that is a against data protection acts?

Still wont stop me removing private clamps, if I hear anything back, I'll simply say "prove it".

K.Flyer

MugMugs wrote: »

If I was clamped and if I cut it off and hid it in my local canal, How could I be fined by the clampers for removal/damage?

This is probably where this new legislation is going to cover.
I would bet that there is going to be some trade off along the lines of capped fines vs. access to reg details.
At the moment when you are clamped they photograph your reg plate and insurance and tax disc. But I think they have to apply to take you to court to recover the cost if the clamp goes missing or is damaged and they have to prove you did it, although you would have had a reason does not mean you did anything.

listermint

K.Flyer wrote: »

This is probably where this new legislation is going to cover.
I would bet that there is going to be some trade off along the lines of capped fines vs. access to reg details.
At the moment when you are clamped they photograph your reg plate and insurance and tax disc. But I think they have to apply to take you to court to recover the cost if the clamp goes missing or is damaged and they have to prove you did it, although you would have had a reason does not mean you did anything.

Which is the interesting question. I wonder have DCC ever been challenged on this? Who 'owns' the claim once they strap it on.

MugMugs

K.Flyer wrote: »

This is probably where this new legislation is going to cover.
I would bet that there is going to be some trade off along the lines of capped fines vs. access to reg details.
At the moment when you are clamped they photograph your reg plate and insurance and tax disc. But I think they have to apply to take you to court to recover the cost if the clamp goes missing or is damaged and they have to prove you did it, although you would have had a reason does not mean you did anything.

Exactly as listermint has said, am I automatically responsible for something I potentially know nothing about ?

If they attach a clamp to my car, am I now responsible for it's safeguarding?

dougie-lampkin

From what I can see before the actual bill is published, this makes near as makes no difference to the current state of affairs. The sheep that automatically pay the clampers will still pay the clampers. The rebels that cut the clamp off without a consideration of being right/wrong will still cut it off with no repercussions. The only difference I can see so far is that the release fee is being defined?

This is great, I'm going to set up a completely illegal toll road outside my house, say €40 per car. Hopefully the minister will bring in legislation to regulate my operation

djimi

listermint wrote: »

Actually interestingly enough how is this handled by DCC with their 'legitimate' clamping.

Have DCC been challenged through the courts with existing legislation on property loss / damage ?

DCC have the power to issue fines, dont they? I always assumed that when you are clamped the "release fee" is actually a parking fine, which is payable regardless of whether or not the clamp is still in place?

Im not entirely sure how such a system would translate to private property though.

MugMugs

djimi wrote: »

DCC have the power to issue fines, dont they? I always assumed that when you are clamped the "release fee" is actually a parking fine, which is payable regardless of whether or not the clamp is still in place?

Im not entirely sure how such a system would translate to private property though.

DCC have Byelaws in place governing their clamping.

BMJD

MugMugs wrote: »

If I was clamped and if I cut it off and hid it in my local canal, How could I be fined by the clampers for removal/damage?

mutilate the stupid thing but please don't litter, especially in waterways

MugMugs

BMJD wrote: »

mutilate the stupid thing but please don't litter, especially in waterways

With respects, I was speaking rethorecially and giving an example.

Phill Ewinn

Thugs who operate illegal cash based business get endorsed, condoned and helped by serving government minister.


Holy fvcking ****. Truly this a banana republic.

jd

mickdw wrote: »

Never clamped me either but I would assume if I lived in an apartment complex with clamping in operation, I most likely would have been clamped many times as the amount of hoops they want you to jump through all the while being more on the side of extorsion that fairness would have caught me out no doubt. The parking on private land argument doesnt stand either when talking about parking at apartment complexes.

I live an apartment complex with clamping for the last 8 years and neither I, nor my visitors, have ever been clamped. We park where we are meant to, and if we have a visitor we give them a permit. Never had an issue.

K.Flyer

jd wrote: »

I live an apartment complex with clamping for the last 8 years and neither I, nor my visitors, have ever been clamped. We park where we are meant to, and if we have a visitor we give them a permit. Never had an issue.

Thats all well and good but there have been countless examples of where vehicles have been clamped in error or because, as in my case, you arrive to carry out essential or emergency repairs with nobody available to give you a permit and there is no alllowance made and the course of appeal is stacked in favour of the clamping company, making the likelyhood of any refunds practically zero.
The part that pi**es me off most is if you ring them to explain the situation they dont give a toss, its pay up to have the clamp off and email your appeal to them.

the culture of deference

MugMugs wrote: »

With respects, I was speaking rethorecially and giving an example.

You can't be too sure with what I have seen from using the canals every year. A few years ago on the the grand canal at dolphins barn our Prop caught a mattress, it took 3 hours with a diver to remove it so you can never be sure what people would throw in the canal.

What happens if a team of anti clampers follows the clamping company and destroys all it's clamps. How many do clampers keep in stock?

And also as I posted before, DCC's clamping truck. No wonder they lose money when they use a 6.5 litre vehicle to plod around town. This truck does about 13 to the gallon.

listermint

djimi wrote: »

DCC have the power to issue fines, dont they? I always assumed that when you are clamped the "release fee" is actually a parking fine, which is payable regardless of whether or not the clamp is still in place?

Im not entirely sure how such a system would translate to private property though.

Ah, that makes more sense.

Yawns

jd wrote: »

I live an apartment complex with clamping for the last 8 years and neither I, nor my visitors, have ever been clamped. We park where we are meant to, and if we have a visitor we give them a permit. Never had an issue.

I moved into my apartment a few years ago. On the day of moving in, a clamper tried to clamp my car. I explained I was moving in and hadn't gotten the permit yet as I had just gotten the keys that day. He told me I could have a week to sort it out or I'll be clamped. He came back at 5 or 6am very next morning and clamped me.

No I didn't pay the release fee.

jd

Yawns wrote: »

I moved into my apartment a few years ago. On the day of moving in, a clamper tried to clamp my car. I explained I was moving in and hadn't gotten the permit yet as I had just gotten the keys that day. He told me I could have a week to sort it out or I'll be clamped. He came back at 5 or 6am very next morning and clamped me.

No I didn't pay the release fee.

And I'd like to see proper regulation and an independent appeals process as well.

Greenmachine

Think of something unethical.
Force people to pay for it.
Police turn a blind eye.
Apply for a license to carry on being.
Sad day for society this.
Scotland has it right.

Guy:Incognito

Greenmachine wrote: »

Think of something unethical.
Force people to pay for it.
Police turn a blind eye.
Apply for a license to carry on being.
Sad day for society this.
Scotland has it right.

Which part is unethical? Charging people to park on someone elses land they paid for and maintain? Saying **** you to the rules someone else puts on the use of their land and doing whatever you like ? Or punishing people that take the piss on your land while clearly explaining to them the rules before they make their own decision to use the land?


As for apartment complexes. The management company employes the clampers. The management company is either made up of or employed by the owners of the apartments. In either instance the owners are deciding to have clampers . If the owners didnt want them they wouldnt be there.

listermint

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Which part is unethical? Charging people to park on someone elses land they paid for and maintain? Saying **** you to the rules someone else puts on the use of their land and doing whatever you like ? Or punishing people that take the piss on your land while clearly explaining to them the rules before they make their own decision to use the land?


As for apartment complexes. The management company employes the clampers. The management company is either made up of or employed by the owners of the apartments. In either instance the owners are deciding to have clampers . If the owners didnt want them they wouldnt be there.

Ah but they would though, savy marketing teams with tales of influx of cash etc etc. Stupid people are generally duped into it. Which turns in to apathy after a while.

UnawareCaesar

I personally can't see the problem with ticketing cars which leaves them a timeframe to get the money to pay the fine rather than immobilising them and leaving someone without the use of their vehicle in the event of an emergency.

For instance I remember a few years back there was a private ambulance clamped in UCD, while it was aparently legal it could have led to a fatality.

thebaz

The Dublin parking appeals officer, Bill Keilthy wants to increase the clamping charge to 130 euros . I understand parking needs to be regulated and am a compliant motorist, who always buys a pay and display ticket, but object totally to Mr Keilthys 100 % greed driven plan , in just hammering the less well off motorists !

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/dublin-motorist-s-car-clamped-63-times-over-four-years-1.1356446

quietsailor

thebaz wrote: »

The Dublin parking appeals officer, Bill Keilthy wants to increase the clamping charge to 130 euros . I understand parking needs to be regulated and am a compliant motorist, who always buys a pay and display ticket, but object totally to Mr Keilthys 100 % greed driven plan , in just hammering the less well off motorists !

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/dublin-motorist-s-car-clamped-63-times-over-four-years-1.1356446

Ah come on your completely misquoting that article - he wants it raised as he believes the fee is no longer a deterent - a completely different thing from "100% greed". Why not increase the fee for cars that are repeatedly clamped within a time period

Full article quoted
Dublin’s most persistent parking offender has been identified after a four-year analysis of registration numbers found one car had been clamped 63 times.
The driver, whose name has not been revealed, will have clocked up at least €5,000 in clamping release fees, but the city’s parking appeals officer, Bill Keilthy, said the charges appear to have lost their deterrent value.
The €80 cost of releasing a clamp has not increased since its introduction in 1998. Mr Keilthy, who deals with appeals against Dublin Street Parking Services, said the “real deterrent effect” had diminished with a substantial number of repeat offenders.


His analysis of the frequency with which cars were clamped in the last four years showed that almost 30 per cent had been clamped more than once. Almost 400 cars were clamped more than 10 times, four cars were clamped an average of once a month, while the “most persistent offender” was clamped 63 times.
In his annual report to Dublin City Council Mr Keilthy said clamp-release charges should be increased by more than 60 per cent to €130 to cover the actual cost of the service, and to preserve the deterrent effect.
The service cost the council about €7 million a year, which could be fully recovered only if the charge was increased to €130, he said. Otherwise it would continue to be subsidised from the meter fees paid by compliant parkers.

thebaz

quietsailor wrote: »

A Why not increase the fee for cars that are repeatedly clamped within a time period



The service cost the council about €7 million a year, which could be fully recovered only if the charge was increased to €130, he said. Otherwise it would continue to be subsidised from the meter fees paid by compliant parkers.[/I]

Agree with the first bit , just dont believe the service costs 7 million to run , bearing in mind all the money they already pull in on clamping fees - think it is just a spin , so he can increase charge , and thius greed - and for most people i know (including me ) 80 euros is already eneogh of a detterent !

Drummerboy08

Think I'll buy some shares in Black and Decker if this is brought Into effect.

galwaytt

...I assume that all those with an issue with clamping have now taken the opportunity to address the Minister directly on the issue - it's only the heads of the Bill - it ain't law, yet.

No point be-atching and moaning amongst ourselves, Leo probably doesn't have boards.ie/motors stickied in his Favourites bar.........

galwaytt

quietsailor wrote: »

Dublin’s most persistent parking offender has been identified after a four-year analysis of registration numbers found one car had been clamped 63 times.
The driver, whose name has not been revealed, will have clocked up at least €5,000 in clamping release fees, but the city’s parking appeals officer

That's hilarious: that, and the fact that he is still driving the car after those years. A genuine 'one-owner' jobbie :pac:

Either that, or the subsequent 4 owners have been equally..........'remiss' in their parking.

UnawareCaesar

UnawareCaesar wrote: »

I personally can't see the problem with ticketing cars which leaves them a timeframe to get the money to pay the fine rather than immobilising them and leaving someone without the use of their vehicle in the event of an emergency.

For instance I remember a few years back there was a private ambulance clamped in UCD, while it was aparently legal it could have led to a fatality.

The this is, is it is not a fine. It is a removal fee.

A private company cannot fine anyone.

PizzamanIRL

Bastards.

At the end of the day, like some people said, if you just cut it off and dump it, they don't have proof that you did or some anti-clamping super hero is going around cutting them off.

Just had a quick read of the Act.

Do it allow for cars to be removed? If yes, IMO this will cause many problems!

Edit seems they are allowed to remove after non-payment for 48hrs (Head 24). Plenty of time to remove a clamp or fill the lock with superglue.

mgbgt1978

Although "private clamping" has never been properly legalised in this country (in fact the Waterford IT case went against the clampers), Leo has decided to simply regulate the clampers and not actually legalise their operations.

So while there might be a slightly more effective appeals process (which can't be any worse than the non-existant current process, i.e. you will never get your money back) and a cap on release fees, the actual act of clamping a car in a public place has yet to be legalised.

Guy:Incognito

UnawareCaesar wrote: »

I personally can't see the problem with ticketing cars which leaves them a timeframe to get the money to pay the fine rather than immobilising them and leaving someone without the use of their vehicle in the event of an emergency.

.

How many people will pay a ticket issued from a private parking company? Considering they are currently cutting off clamps.

UnawareCaesar

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How many people will pay a ticket issued from a private parking company? Considering they are currently cutting off clamps.

Probably as many as are paying the clamping fee now but it just doesn't leave people without the use of their vehicle especially in the case of wrongful clamping. Imagine for instance you move into a new apartment and are waiting for a permit when your wife goes into labour and your car is clamped and of no use to you. Not going to happen much but I'd rather see a ticket on my car than a clamp.