Bring Clampers to Small Claims Court

TCP/IP

Hi Everybody,

Quick question for you. The wifes car was clamped last week despite having a valid ticket (Which we still have) My question is that can you bring the cleampers to the small claims court? The appeals process is a joke and the supposed independent 2nd appeals process is linked to the clamping company so a complete joke. I want to skip all of this and go direct to court if possible.

By the way this is NCPS not the council

Many thanks,
TCP/IP

ironclaw

If you have photographic proof and beyond all doubt that it was legitimately parked, I'd say go for it. Why was it clamped? As bad as NCPS are, I've rarely seen them 'clamp for no reason' For instance, having a ticket but parked in a permit & resident only / no parking zone would be fair enough.

What makes you think you have a case? Not trolling, just curious as to the specifics.

Also, any court will tell you to go through the company and their appeals process first, so you'd be wasting your own time going to court. Have a stab at the appeals process before you go to court. As they'll just tell you to do that first. People have got money back from NCPS, I know that for a fact. It can just take a long time and a good few phone calls / letters.

com1

It would probably be best to exhaust all other paths of remediation first (i.e. go through the company's own appeals process) and if you still get no satisfaction then take it to court.

I'd be interested to hear how you get on with this so please keep us posted.

Thanks

(Edit - what Ironclaw said - got there first...)

Valetta

What reason did they give for clamping the car?

Anan1

Have a look here: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/small_claims_court.html

It doesn't look likely to me, but you could give them a call and ask. I've done this before, and found them helpful.

TCP/IP wrote: »

The appeals process is a joke and the supposed independent 2nd appeals process is linked to the clamping company so a complete joke. I want to skip all of this and go direct to court if possible.

By the way this is NCPS not the council

I also wouldn't assume any of the above - people here have successfully appealed and been refunded.

TCP/IP

Thanks for all the replies people. The specifics are that my wife parked and bought a ticket it had no method to stick to the windscreen and as she closed her door it must have blown down from the window to the ground. When we got back to the car the guy was clamping it and we said we had a ticket opened the door and showed him. However he said you have to pay to remove the clamp and appeal it. Is she totally at fault here or should there be some flexablity due to having a valid ticket.

kingtut

So effectively you had no ticket displayed (as it was lying on the floor or something) which is why you received the clamp.
I guess he has the discretion as to whether to remove the clamp or not in that situation but I don't think going to small claims is worth it (at the end of the day you had no ticket displayed).

Sucks that he wouldn't remove the clamp after showing him the valid ticket but it is a money making racket after all!

Kenny Logins

TCP/IP wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies people. The specifics are that my wife parked and bought a ticket it had no method to stick to the windscreen and as she closed her door it must have blown down from the window to the ground. When we got back to the car the guy was clamping it and we said we had a ticket opened the door and showed him. However he said you have to pay to remove the clamp and appeal it. Is she totally at fault here or should there be some flexablity due to having a valid ticket.

Failure to display is the same as not having a ticket in their eyes.

kingtut

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Failure to display is the same as not having a ticket in their eyes.

Same applies to anything, tax, NCT etc, you might have one that is valid but the fines are for not displaying them.

TCP/IP

Ok thanks guys I nearly feel like bringing them anyway and see if they turn up in court.

mickdw

Im assuming that you have already paid them so Id say you are kinda stuck.
You didnt have a ticket displayed so you were clamped.
When the clamper refused to remove the clamp when ticket was shown to him, I would have simply cut it off and made it disappear... Let it cost them some money for a change.
Id leave it to someone with a more reasonable case to bring them to small claims court.

spyderski

I took NCPS to court around 8 years ago for clamping my car across from St Vincents hospital, when a valid ticket was clearly displayed. I tried to reason with them, and even called to their offices to have a civilized discussion with them to refund my money. I was met by a complete knacker who claimed to be the boss and told me to go ahead & sue them.

Luckily I had a friend who is a solicitor who took great delight in issuing proceedings against them. The day before the case was due in court the knacker who I had met phoned the solicitors office and said he wanted to settle the case. Can't remember the specifics but I got a few hundred quid and my solicitor gouged him appropriately for fees.

These thugs operate on the basis that no-one will take them on in court as the money involved is not worth the hassle. More people should take them on, as if they have clamped you in error you will win in court, or more likely they will settle, and you'll get your costs plus damages.

TCP/IP

Thanks for the reply. I agree that I feel they would settle than rather go to court. I would rather try my luck in front of a judge. My point would be surely the ticket should have a method of been stuck to the dash/windscreen but this was not the case as the ticket did not have a sticky back.

spyderski wrote: »

I took NCPS to court around 8 years ago for clamping my car across from St Vincents hospital, when a valid ticket was clearly displayed. I tried to reason with them, and even called to their offices to have a civilized discussion with them to refund my money. I was met by a complete knacker who claimed to be the boss and told me to go ahead & sue them.

Luckily I had a friend who is a solicitor who took great delight in issuing proceedings against them. The day before the case was due in court the knacker who I had met phoned the solicitors office and said he wanted to settle the case. Can't remember the specifics but I got a few hundred quid and my solicitor gouged him appropriately for fees.

These thugs operate on the basis that no-one will take them on in court as the money involved is not worth the hassle. More people should take them on, as if they have clamped you in error you will win in court, or more likely they will settle, and you'll get your costs plus damages.

jackofalltrades

Yeah I'd definitely take them to court if I was in your shoes.
The clampers appeals process is completely biased.

From this:

European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations, 1995.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/si/0027.html
Quote:

6. (1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

Quote:

SCHEDULE 3

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

1. Terms which have the object or effect of:

( e ) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

The only chances that they have to enforce a penalty fee(the de-clamp fee) is to show a relationship between the de-clamp fee and the damages incurred. Since the parking was paid they can't really argue damages there.

Also the fact that your wife showed the clamper the ticket will count in your favour.
I'd definitely make a point of arguing that their tickets don't have any means of securely attaching them, given how other parking machines will provide tickets with a sticky strip on them.

Johnny Jukebox

I've used the small claims court and found it excellent in terms of speed of resolution and focusing the mind of people who were ignoring me.
You can do it all online for 10 or 15 euro.

That said, I think you would lose because your valid ticket was not displayed and the onus on you is to ensure that a valid ticket is displayed.

spyderski

If you are definitely in the right (as I was) I reckon the Small Claims Court is a waste of time. The district court is the only way to go. Most solicitors will take on a case like this if they think its strong enough, and will be happy to get their fees when you win. If they don't think you have a strong enough case, they will tell you (for free) not to waste your time.

You can claim for a lot more than the clamping fee in the district court - loss of earnings, damages etc. - and the clamper muppets will be a lot less inclined to go before a District court judge who could slap a judgement of a grand or more on them, with the resultant negative publicity.

Don't forget, solicitors, judges and the local press all love to give clampers a hammering when the opportunity arises!

MarkR

In this case I wouldn't. You'd have to admit that it wasn't actually displayed, and so the clamper couldn't have known about the ticket. Once they have come out to clamp it, it's only goodwill that would get it removed. Hard luck.

Guy:Incognito

TCP/IP wrote: »

My point would be surely the ticket should have a method of been stuck to the dash/windscreen but this was not the case as the ticket did not have a sticky back.

Your Tax, insurance and NCT discs don't have a means to stick them to the window either , you still have to display them.

some cars have clips on the A pillar for things like parking tickets.

Del2005

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yeah I'd definitely take them to court if I was in your shoes.
The clampers appeals process is completely biased.

From this:

European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations, 1995.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/si/0027.html
Quote:

Quote:


The only chances that they have to enforce a penalty fee(the de-clamp fee) is to show a relationship between the de-clamp fee and the damages incurred. Since the parking was paid they can't really argue damages there.

Also the fact that your wife showed the clamper the ticket will count in your favour.
I'd definitely make a point of arguing that their tickets don't have any means of securely attaching them, given how other parking machines will provide tickets with a sticky strip on them.

It's been a long time since I've got a pay and display ticket which had any tackiness to hold it on the dash or window. They cost more and jam the machines more easily. The easiest way I've found to avoid clamping is to always look at my car before I walk away from it to make sure the ticket is clearly visible, I've no idea how other people haven't discovered this brilliant way of avoiding being clamped.

jackofalltrades

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

That said, I think you would lose because your valid ticket was not displayed and the onus on you is to ensure that a valid ticket is displayed.

The ticket being displayed could be argued either way. But charging someone a €80-120 fee has to be a disproportionately high sum. The car park owner in this case would have suffered no damages.

Del2005 wrote:

The easiest way I've found to avoid clamping is to always look at my car before I walk away from it to make sure the ticket is clearly visible, I've no idea how other people haven't discovered this brilliant way of avoiding being clamped.

And do you think a penalty fee of €80-120 is a fair amount for somebody following the rules who makes a mistake? I think if you applied the principle of severely penalising people for slight mistakes life would get expensive/difficult very fast.

Del2005

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The ticket being displayed could be argued either way. But charging someone a €80-120 fee has to be a disproportionately high sum. The car park owner in this case would have suffered no damages.
And do you think a penalty fee of €80-120 is a fair amount for somebody following the rules who makes a mistake? I think if you applied the principle of severely penalising people for slight mistakes life would get expensive/difficult very fast.

It requires 2 trips for the clamping company so that seems like a reasonable price since they have to pay staff, insurance, motor tax and fuel for something which only takes the person parking a second to make sure that they won't be clamped. The penalty has to be large enough to make compliance the cheaper option.

TheChizler

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The ticket being displayed could be argued either way. But charging someone a €80-120 fee has to be a disproportionately high sum. The car park owner in this case would have suffered no damages.
And do you think a penalty fee of €80-120 is a fair amount for somebody following the rules who makes a mistake? I think if you applied the principle of severely penalising people for slight mistakes life would get expensive/difficult very fast.

It's technically not a penalty though. Only official bodies can issue real penalties. It's a clamping fee, where by parking there, and definitely after buying a ticket, you agree to have your car clamped and pay the corresponding fee for this "service". Maybe they should rephrase the signs to say something like: by parking here you are agreeing to pay €xx to avail of the clamping service (discount of €xx available if you clearly display a ticket).

I'm trying to avoid defending the company here and trying to look at this in a business sense. They have gone to some expense to clamp the car. The ongoing cost of equipment, vehicles, wages, ticket machines, admin needs to have a corresponding income. I presume that the owners/directors make a very good living out of it, and I may be wrong, but I imagine that the costs are multiples of the profits. This (if accurate!) would suggest that the fees charged are in the realm of appropriateness. If they reduced fees they would have to increase the number of clampings, which seem to be pretty much maxed out, in order to keep the operation running. That or reduce the number of successful appeals.

biko

TCP/IP wrote: »

as she closed her door it must have blown down from the window to the ground.

I've seen so many threads about this very issue. Not trying to be funny but she could have saved herself a bundle by simply checking after closing the door.
Expensive lesson learned.

andy t

in fairness you man was an a**hole to keep clamping the car after she showed him the ticket ...

go get some quick legal advise is the best thing to do & let us know how you get on

jackofalltrades

Del2005 wrote: »

It requires 2 trips for the clamping company so that seems like a reasonable price since they have to pay staff, insurance, motor tax and fuel for something which only takes the person parking a second to make sure that they won't be clamped. The penalty has to be large enough to make compliance the cheaper option.

In this case only one trip was required. It's in the best interest of the motorist to make sure the ticket is displayed, otherwise they can't move their vehicle when they get back. That's deterrent enough.

TheChizzler wrote:

t's technically not a penalty though. Only official bodies can issue real penalties. It's a clamping fee, where by parking there, and definitely after buying a ticket, you agree to have your car clamped and pay the corresponding fee for this "service".

I refer to it as a penalty fee because that's how they refer to it in an article on clamping by the Law Society in March 2011.

You can't sign your legal rights away though. If the fee can be proven to be disproportional, it unfair and thus unenforceable.
In this case assuming the parking cost roughly €2, then the fee for not displaying is in the order of 40 to 60 times the cost of the parking.
Also in this case IMHO no damages have been suffered by the landowner, the parking was paid for.
In most other aspects of life simple mistakes like this would be excused and large fees wouldn't be imposed.

I'm trying to avoid defending the company here and trying to look at this in a business sense. They have gone to some expense to clamp the car. The ongoing cost of equipment, vehicles, wages, ticket machines, admin needs to have a corresponding income. I presume that the owners/directors make a very good living out of it, and I may be wrong, but I imagine that the costs are multiples of the profits. This (if accurate!) would suggest that the fees charged are in the realm of appropriateness.

As a deterrent fee you can justify covering your costs. But when you pay for the service you become a consumer, and consumer law doesn't allow for disproportionately high compensation. Even though there might be a high cost in policing/resolving consumer issues.

Wheelnut

There seems to be a fundamental question of whether the clamping was legal or not. I'm not an expert but the link by Jackofalltrades in post 25 is very helpful. It seems that it may depend on the ownership of the carpark rather than who put on the clamp. The clamper may only be a contractor. It seems that clamping may be legal if the owners are a statutory authority such as the council (maybe NCPS are contractors to a SA). On the other hand if the car park was private property, clamping may not be legal. I hope that I'm not being unfair to barrister Sheehan by reducing his article to this summary

BMJD

ROFL
http://adverts.ie/4871224

flutered

dunno who is wrong here, but the appeals are heard by the operators of various clamping companys, i remember reading that here on boards, they will not decide against themselves.

Anan1

flutered wrote: »

dunno who is wrong here, but the appeals are heard by the operators of various clamping companys, i remember reading that here on boards, they will not decide against themselves.

That's one of those things that everyone said for a while, but that turned out not to be true: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88974218&postcount=196

Grolschevik

Wheelnut wrote: »

. On the other hand if the car park was private property, clamping may not be legal. I hope that I'm not being unfair to barrister Sheehan by reducing his article to this summary

Dunno about this. I've seen cars clamped in the Law Society's car park by Law Society staff...

Wheelnut

Grolschevik wrote: »

Dunno about this. I've seen cars clamped in the Law Society's car park by Law Society staff...

Maybe they put clamps on their own cars to frighten others off, it's not an unknown tactic.

endacl

Just so you know OP, if you do decide to take them to court, it won't be the SCC. You're not a customer of the clamping company. They haven't 'let you down' as such, in terms of their not living up to their obligations in terms of a good you bought from them, or a service you have engaged them to provide.

Small claims procedure doesn't apply here.

discombobulate

TCP/IP wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies people. The specifics are that my wife parked and bought a ticket it had no method to stick to the windscreen and as she closed her door it must have blown down from the window to the ground. When we got back to the car the guy was clamping it and we said we had a ticket opened the door and showed him. However he said you have to pay to remove the clamp and appeal it. Is she totally at fault here or should there be some flexablity due to having a valid ticket.

Its the fact that the guy seen you open the door get the ticket and show him that'd piss me off.

If it was clamped when you got back and he was gone you couldn't prove the ticket was yours but that wasn't the case.

Take them on if you can OP and best of luck!

jackofalltrades

endacl wrote: »

Just so you know OP, if you do decide to take them to court, it won't be the SCC. You're not a customer of the clamping company. They haven't 'let you down' as such, in terms of their not living up to their obligations in terms of a good you bought from them, or a service you have engaged them to provide.

Small claims procedure doesn't apply here.

You pay to park in the car park, therefore you're a customer of the car park operator.
The same operator who's clamping you. IMHO being a consumer means that you're perfectly entitled to bring them to the small claims court.
As long as the grounds you're doing it under are not excluded and the amount you're looking to claim for is under €2000.

scottp68877

I think it's ridiculous anyway that you have to still display a ticket in this day and age. Surely by now you should just go to the machine type in your reg and pay. Then when the warden comes around he could just scan the reg.

endacl

jackofalltrades wrote: »

You pay to park in the car park, therefore you're a customer of the car park operator.
The same operator who's clamping you. IMHO being a consumer means that you're perfectly entitled to bring them to the small claims court.
As long as the grounds you're doing it under are not excluded and the amount you're looking to claim for is under €2000.

NCPS don't own car parks. They manage them on behalf of their clients, the car park owners. OP had no commercial interaction with NCPS. Small claims doesn't apply. Not looking to get into a debate over this. Simply stating the fact, from the position of 'I know what I'm talking about'.

ironclaw

scottp68877 wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous anyway that you have to still display a ticket in this day and age. Surely by now you should just go to the machine type in your reg and pay. Then when the warden comes around he could just scan the reg.

Given that most people don't know what I fog light is and how to use it, let alone where they parked their car in the first place, I doubt people could remember their own reg :pac:

scottp68877

ironclaw wrote: »

Given that most people don't know what I fog light is and how to use it, let alone where they parked their car in the first place, I doubt people could remember their own reg :pac:

Kind of have to agree with you there. Even though I'm one of them. Only figured out where my fog light was about a well ago

markpb

scottp68877 wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous anyway that you have to still display a ticket in this day and age. Surely by now you should just go to the machine type in your reg and pay. Then when the warden comes around he could just scan the reg.

The local authorities in Dublin (and a few others) offer a system similar to what you're describing for on-street parking and APCOA use a system exactly like it for the Luas Park & Ride car parks.

I guess at the end of the day, pay & display is cheap and cheerful and very reliable which is why most car park operators like it. As long as you double check that your ticket is on your windscreen, you know you won't get clamped.

scottp68877

markpb wrote: »

The local authorities in Dublin (and a few others) offer a system similar to what you're describing for on-street parking and APCOA use a system exactly like it for the Luas Park & Ride car parks.

I guess at the end of the day, pay & display is cheap and cheerful and very reliable which is why most car park operators like it. As long as you double check that your ticket is on your windscreen, you know you won't get clamped.

Oh I didn't know that. Yes it is reliable enough but it's just that some of the time you could end up spending 5 minutes looking for the machine or don't get me started about the tickets you buy in shops. They are absolutely idiotic

jackofalltrades

endacl wrote: »

OP had no commercial interaction with NCPS.

Then who does he have a commercial interaction with, the owner? Can he take them to court?

athlonelad

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Then who does he have a commercial interaction with, the owner? Can he take them to court?

Of course there was a commercial interaction with NCPS don't be silly

endacl

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Then who does he have a commercial interaction with, the owner? Can he take them to court?

He can take anybody he likes to court. Just not the small claims court in this instance.

jackofalltrades

endacl wrote: »

He can take anybody he likes to court. Just not the small claims court in this instance.

And why can't he go to the small claims court?
And can you further explain how he has no commercial interaction with NCPS, when they are the operator of the car park?

If you have a legal background, which is what you seem to be suggesting, I'd love to hear an answer to the above questions.
Just so I can help myself, or other people I know, if I or they end up in this situation.

endacl

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And why can't he go to the small claims court?
And can you further explain how he has no commercial interaction with NCPS, when they are the operator of the car park?

If you have a legal background, which is what you seem to be suggesting, I'd love to hear an answer to the above questions.
Just so I can help myself, or other people I know, if I or they end up in this situation.

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/781D7D5227918A618025715C004CAEF3?opendocument&l=en&p=110

http://www.ncps.ie/index.htm

Wasn't my intention to get into a pointless interweb debate. Read the links. Come back with anything you can't figure out.

Edit: I never claimed, implied, or insinuated that I have any kind of legal background. I just post about topics that I'm informed about. You really don't need a legal training to understand the SCC procedure. You just need to be able to read. It was designed with this fact in mind.

sandin

spyderski wrote: »

I took NCPS to court around 8 years ago for clamping my car across from St Vincents hospital, when a valid ticket was clearly displayed. I tried to reason with them, and even called to their offices to have a civilized discussion with them to refund my money. I was met by a complete knacker who claimed to be the boss and told me to go ahead & sue them.

Luckily I had a friend who is a solicitor who took great delight in issuing proceedings against them. The day before the case was due in court the knacker who I had met phoned the solicitors office and said he wanted to settle the case. Can't remember the specifics but I got a few hundred quid and my solicitor gouged him appropriately for fees.

These thugs operate on the basis that no-one will take them on in court as the money involved is not worth the hassle. More people should take them on, as if they have clamped you in error you will win in court, or more likely they will settle, and you'll get your costs plus damages.

Sorry, but this post reads like BS.

endacl

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Then who does he have a commercial interaction with, the owner? Can he take them to court?

Sorry. Missed this one. Yes. His interaction is with the owner. NCPS act as the owner's agent. Same as the management company of a rented building, or a letting agent.

jackofalltrades

endacl wrote: »

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/781D7D5227918A618025715C004CAEF3?opendocument&l=en&p=110

http://www.ncps.ie/index.htm

Wasn't my intention to get into a pointless interweb debate. Read the links. Come back with anything you can't figure out.

Yes I've been on the small claims website before.
But I haven't seen anything on it that would preclude you from taking an action against the body that you have a consumer contract with.

Edit: I never claimed, implied, or insinuated that I have any kind of legal background. I just post about topics that I'm informed about. You really don't need a legal training to understand the SCC procedure. You just need to be able to read. It was designed with this fact in mind.

I assumed from saying "I know what I'm talking about" that you were involved in the legal profession.
Otherwise it just sounded like you were being patronising.

Wizard

They class non display same as having no ticket, it was down to the drivers discretion if he had not yet printed your ticket, if ticket had not been printed he was being an ass, he has discretion before the ticket is printed, as for your appeal you can check the photos on their website, I would be fairly sure your ticket is not visible on any of the photos or you would have had a refund by now. You can threaten legal action, that would normally get you a partial refund or you can lean on the owner of the car park if you know who it is