Clampers (NCPS) Damaged Alloy

Ard_Ri1978

## Not a Rant, Help required ## Another tale of misery involving NCPS..... Car was clamped (illegally) outside my home even though I have valid permit, am about to appeal same (new permit came in post 2 weeks ago, forgot to display new one)

My question is..... Do clampers take pictures of your wheel prior to applying clamp? I returned home to find my (expensive) alloy wheel damaged by the clamp. Problem is that the wheel already had minor damage prior to clamping, but further minor damage has now been caused by the clamp. Alloys are after market and quite expensive :-(

Know they take pics of windscreen, registered number etc but, Will clampers have picture of wheel prior to clamping?? I.e Will they have proof they're not responsible for all of the damage?? Help please

djimi

Take as many pictures as you can of the damage with the clamp, and do your best to show how the clamp has caused the damage. Whether youre in the right or wrong with how you are parked, I would cause unholy war for NCPS if they ever damaged my car when applying a clamp.

goz83

You had a valid permit, but it wasn't displayed, so they were in the right clamping your car, as far as clamping goes.

Regarding the damage...i doubt anything will be done, as they will deny it, or say the damage might have happened if someone tampered with the clamp.

AlwaysAnyTime

Take it to the small claims court, have photos, detailed cost to repair/replace, etc. You have absolutely nothing to lose, except €15 or so for the court fee. Edit: it's €25 now. Most cases are awarded against the respondent. Would be a great help also if you had pictures of the wheel before damage.

Ard_Ri1978

Have all the pictures, before and after, and am well prepared for the minor skirmish that lies ahead in small claims court.

But what I really need to know is if THEY take picture of wheels prior to applying clamp????

hfallada

I know Dublin city council take pictures of the whole car before they clamp it. So I imagine private clampers do the same

Arthur Beesley

OP, how was the clamping 'illegal'? Did you have a valid in date permit on display or not?

corktina

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

OP, how was the clamping 'illegal'? Did you have a valid in date permit on display or not?

basically it wasn't illegal , but that's not the point.

If they damaged the alloy , they should compensate for it. But if it was already damaged, how do you quantify how much they have devalued the wheel by?

Ard_Ri1978

I know what damage pre existed, it was minor! If they have no Pre Clamp pictures of wheel how can they quantify damage caused by them?

Arthur Beesley

So the wheels had minor damage before, and they now have further minor damage.

How much more minor damage? And how can you prove the 'new' minor damage wasn't present up to a minute before he clamping occurred?

mullingar

Private clamping is in very grey legal area and as it's unregulated I doubt they took any pictures.

I would be the first to drag the to court for the damaged alloy, hell, all you can loose is €25!!

But I really doubt this will get to court as it could set a precedence which is directly against their "business model" and will pay you on the steps of the court

gman2k

mullingar wrote: »

Private clamping is in very grey legal area and as it's unregulated I doubt they took any pictures.

I would be the first to drag the to court for the damaged alloy, hell, all you can loose is €25!!

But I really doubt this will get to court as it could set a precedence which is directly against their "business model" and will pay you on the steps of the court

Small Claims Court rulings don't set precedence.

Greenmachine

mullingar wrote: »

Private clamping is in very grey legal area and as it's unregulated I doubt they took any pictures.

I would be the first to drag the to court for the damaged alloy, hell, all you can loose is €25!!

But I really doubt this will get to court as it could set a precedence which is directly against their "business model" and will pay you on the steps of the court

Sue them for the original cost of purchasing the alloys and fitting. If there is damage to an alloy that did not exist before the clamp that is all that matters as far as I am concerned. They could have noticed they damaged an alloy as they were fitting a clamp and taken a picture a that point, documenting damage they caused as being pre-existing.

Arthur Beesley

Greenmachine wrote: »

Sue them for the original cost of purchasing the alloys and fitting. If there is damage to an alloy that did not exist before the clamp that is all that matters as far as I am concerned. They could have noticed they damaged an alloy as they were fitting a clamp and taken a picture a that point, documenting damage they caused as being pre-existing.

You think they should replace all 4 alloys? Even thought they clamped only one of them?

Tigger

can we see a pic of the damage they caused
i'd go spare if they damaged my alloys

corktina

Greenmachine wrote: »

Sue them for the original cost of purchasing the alloys and fitting. If there is damage to an alloy that did not exist before the clamp that is all that matters as far as I am concerned. They could have noticed they damaged an alloy as they were fitting a clamp and taken a picture a that point, documenting damage they caused as being pre-existing.

but it's damage to a damaged (already devalued) alloy

daveohdave

mullingar wrote: »

Private clamping is in very grey legal area and as it's unregulated I doubt they took any pictures.

Some of them do anyway, I've seen one of the major private operators do it. Not sure they did before shots, but they did plates as well as the clamp so I'd be surprised if they didnt. Digital photography is cheap.

Greenmachine

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

You think they should replace all 4 alloys? Even thought they clamped only one of them?

Pretty sure they sold as a set. Otherwise a shop could end up with 3 of one alloy and would be good for no-one. I could be wrong.

Greenmachine

corktina wrote: »

but it's damage to a damaged (already devalued) alloy

Burden of proof on the clamper. They would be splitting hairs if they claimed they are responsible for only some of the damage.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Greenmachine

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Let us know how this goes op. Not sure what the deal is on publishing the info if they come to an agreement.

gman2k

There was a case in Dublin a few years ago where a Porsche owner claimed against clampers for a damaged alloy and lost.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Greenmachine

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the city clampers are okay. They have a legitimate legal entitlement to clamp and a real appeals process.

Arthur Beesley

Greenmachine wrote: »

Burden of proof on the clamper. They would be splitting hairs if they claimed they are responsible for only some of the damage.

I doubt it. Burden on proof on the OP to show the clampers caused the damage that he claims they caused.

He says he has photos of the before damage, but unless they were taken earlier that day then they don't really prove the clampers did the damage.

Ard_Ri1978

Just to clarify, 14 cars were clamped overnight in my estate overnight, I personally was clamped at 3.12am outside my own house. I am up to date with Management fees and have a valid permit that was incorrectly displayed, No Dispute, fine paid clamp removed....damage which had not been there before the clamp was applied was discovered when I returned home from work and I notified NCPS accordingly.

jimmynokia

My tuppence worth.
Since there is systems in place to check tax and insurance the clampers should have also access to see if a permit is up to date or not,same way the garda can,thus this will be thrown out in court should it go that far,anyone can forget to stick a disc in a window or it could fall out of holder and again be blown out by slamming door,this been the lazy answer but not uncommon the robbing clampers should really know beforehand and check this info rather than slap out fines like kids in a sweet shop.
Also to note i have been done for not having tax,permit but in fact i had the tax paid two days prior been done for it and a permit,so the system is screwed imo, if you ask me,they are just cash cows and thats it,i have been to court more than once for similar instances and thrown out.
Go get them of you ask me..

Arthur Beesley

Ard_Ri1978 wrote: »

Just to clarify, 14 cars were clamped overnight in my estate overnight, I personally was clamped at 3.12am outside my own house. I am up to date with Management fees and have a valid permit that was incorrectly displayed, No Dispute, fine paid clamp removed....damage which had not been there before the clamp was applied was discovered when I returned home from work and I notified NCPS accordingly.

Doesn't matter whether you had a valid permit or not - you weren't displaying it, so you were legitimately clamped.

enfant terrible

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether you had a valid permit or not - you weren't displaying it, so you were legitimately clamped.

He said no dispute and fine paid.

Arthur Beesley

enfant terrible wrote: »

He said no dispute and fine paid.

Check his first post.

daveohdave

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Check his first post.

There's other posts in the thread you know.

Arthur Beesley

daveohdave wrote: »

There's other posts in the thread you know.

I know. But the OP's credibility is in question because of his changing story / interpretation of the facts.

djimi

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

I know. But the OP's credibility is in question because of his changing story / interpretation of the facts.

Whether or not they are disputing the fine is irrelevant to the thread. The actual clamping has not been called into question; the matter at hand is the damage which the OP claims has been caused by NCPS.

Arthur Beesley

djimi wrote: »

Whether or not they are disputing the fine is irrelevant to the thread. The actual clamping has not been called into question

It has actually - the OP claims it was illegal. It wasn't.

My point stands - the OP has credibility issues.

Greenmachine

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

It has actually - the OP claims it was illegal. It wasn't.

My point stands - the OP has credibility issues.

Prove it was legal