Clamping bill published

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

tomred1

To me this bill is just to make private clamping legal, as there is alot of doubt if it actually is at the moment.

Gran Hermano

Guess this means we'll have a day full of Leo on the TV and radio.

:-(

username123

Does this just legalise private clamping?

I suppose at least there will be a method for appeals.

I will be interested to see what happens where clamping is being enforced on private property for non payment of unrelated debt, ie, management fees. No one is breaking any parking bye laws in this case.

djimi

What we really need is a properly independant and efficient appeals process. If I am clamped incorrectly I should be able to appeal and have my case heard and money returned within 48-72 hours, and be able to know that the person who hears my case is in no way attached to any of the clamping companies involved. Until that is in place, anything else that gets brought in is just hot air.

djimi

username123 wrote: »

I will be interested to see what happens where clamping is being enforced on private property for non payment of unrelated debt, ie, management fees. No one is breaking any parking bye laws in this case.

If its private property then surely it is up to the property owner to set the conditions upon which the clampers operate?

MugMugs

If they're not licenced, how can they be regulated?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

username123

djimi wrote: »

If its private property then surely it is up to the property owner to set the conditions upon which the clampers operate?

Well that's what I hoped the Bill would address.

username123

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But you won't be able to charge more than 100 per release fee and there will be a regulator who victims can take cases to. I'd say the regulator will be flooded with complaints.

djimi

username123 wrote: »

Well that's what I hoped the Bill would address.

I doubt it would have been specific about the reasons why clampers can be hired.

And non-payment of management fees is a perfectly valid reason to clamp imo; the parking space almost certainly remains the property of the complex owners (ie the complex management company), and as such they can revoke permission to use it should management fees not be paid.

_Kaiser_

Looks to me like the usual half-assed, vague, doesn't address the real issues, legislation that's the norm in this country. But it'll get Leo more airtime which is good for him!

Ditto the recent changes to using mobile phones - ok now, you can't hold it, text or send emails, but work away with all your other apps :rolleyes:

username123

djimi wrote: »

I doubt it would have been specific about the reasons why clampers can be hired.

And non-payment of management fees is a perfectly valid reason to clamp imo; the parking space almost certainly remains the property of the complex owners (ie the complex management company), and as such they can revoke permission to use it should management fees not be paid.

The British judicial system would disagree with you there, private clamping for any reason was seen as extortion and outlawed.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lynchie

Heads of the bill are here

- Least all operators must be licensed
- Interesting that those with disabled permit are excluded from being clamped on both public and private land
- Section that allows for licensed operators access to the National Vehicle database file (which only councils have access to now) - means the likes of ncps etc can apply for vehicle owner's address to send out fine if clamp is removed
- Changing of existing RTA / SI laws to allow clampers to remove abandoned vehicles on both public and private land.

djimi

username123 wrote: »

The British judicial system would disagree with you there, private clamping for any reason was seen as extortion and outlawed.

Not really relevant here and now though is it, considering this change will basically legitimise private clamping in Ireland.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

dougie-lampkin

lynchie wrote: »

- Section that allows for licensed operators access to the National Vehicle database file (which only councils have access to now) - means the likes of ncps etc can apply for vehicle owner's address to send out fine if clamp is removed

This is the most worrying part, for me. They have no legal basis for sending out a fine, so why would they be allowed access to the NVDF to get my personal information?

(1) The Minister may designate a body or bodies who shall have access to information from the National Vehicle Driver File (NVDF) for the purposes of administering a parking control system.
(2) A body may not have access to information from the NVDF for the purposes of immobilisation or removal of vehicles.

"parking control system" is a bit vague for me to be happy with the likes of NCPS having my personal details. That term features nowhere else in the bill

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

markpb

username123 wrote: »

The British judicial system would disagree with you there, private clamping for any reason was seen as extortion and outlawed.

Different countries have different laws.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

djimi

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It obviously isnt in this instance.

Ravenid

So just to clear thing up.

The bill released today states:

The Company has to be licensed.
The Clampers on the street have to be licensed.
The Clampers have to be vetted by the Gardaí before getting the licenses.
The Licenses CAN be revoked.
And there are Fines and Criminal charges that can be brought against them if the breach any of the rules.


So can we actually call this a win then?

username123

Ravenid wrote: »

So just to clear thing up.

The bill released today states:

The Company has to be licensed.
The Clampers on the street have to be licensed.
The Clampers have to be vetted by the Gardaí before getting the licenses.
The Licenses CAN be revoked.
And there are Fines and Criminal charges that can be brought against them if the breach any of the rules.


So can we actually call this a win then?

Just to add:

There now exists an appeals process.
Declamp fee is set at a max of 100 euro - this one will be the stickler for the thugs, not as much money to be made by extortion.

BMJD

Angle grinders ftw always and 4eva

ianobrien

I will admit I haven't read it but is there a mention of daily fees? The reason I ask is that I've seen cars that were clamped in car parks (shopping centres) and the car was just left. After a couple of days the clamp was removed and the offending car wasn't moved. The warning sticker was still on the window.

I'm afraid that they could have a declamp fee and then bring in an hourly charge for being clamped.

Also, is there any offence in the act for interfering with a clamp?

Guy:Incognito

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is there anything stopping them entering lots of other industries too?

Marcusm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The quid pro quo for outlawing private clamping in the UK has been to introduce a system where private parking fines can be recovered legally whereas up to now they could just be ignored int he UK. Frankly, clamping is an expensive business, the changes in the UK in the Protection of Freedoms Act will arguably have made barrierless car parks much more profitable (and much more costly for defaulting drivers). I'm not sure which system is better!

What is odd is that Vlad has introduced a non touch regulatory regime for clamping rather than introducing a system to allow the recovery of fines. One still permits immobilisatiom, the other makes it purely a financial issue.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Marcusm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is this the Cambridge/ Parking Eye case on appeal from the County Court where the commercial parking company won on all counts including that they did not have to prove loss as their penalty/fine was commercially justified? I assumed, perhaps naively, that this was based on law as it stood prior to the Protection of Freedoms Act which provided a statutory basis for such charges for the first time.

blackwhite

ianobrien wrote: »

I will admit I haven't read it but is there a mention of daily fees? The reason I ask is that I've seen cars that were clamped in car parks (shopping centres) and the car was just left. After a couple of days the clamp was removed and the offending car wasn't moved. The warning sticker was still on the window.

I'm afraid that they could have a declamp fee and then bring in an hourly charge for being clamped.

Also, is there any offence in the act for interfering with a clamp?

There's provision that cars can be towed by private clamping companies after a period of time (think it's 48 hours).

Removal of a lawfully attached clamp will be an offence (they still have to prove it was you that removed it though).

mgbgt1978

From a quick read-through of the legislation it seems that it is only an offence to remove a clamp when clamped on a public road.....which has always been the case.


....as said it was a quick look at the legislation, but that is all I could see in relation to clamp removal by an 'unofficial' person.

Grolschevik

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

From a quick read-through of the legislation it seems that it is only an offence to remove a clamp when clamped on a public road.....which has always been the case.

Depends on how the term "public" is defined, and whether the bit you read says "public road" or "public place". It'll be defined in another act that this bill refers back to; it won't necessarily be the 'common-sense' definition. Discussion of related issues here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057224313

lynchie

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

From a quick read-through of the legislation it seems that it is only an offence to remove a clamp when clamped on a public road.....which has always been the case.


....as said it was a quick look at the legislation, but that is all I could see in relation to clamp removal by an 'unofficial' person.

Head 31

It shall be an offence under this Act for any person to interfere with, damage, or remove a vehicle immobilisation device lawfully fitted by a licensed vehicle immobilisation operator to an unauthorised parked vehicle parked on either public property or on such private land / property as stipulated within this Act.

djimi

...fitted by a licensed vehicle immobilisation operator to an unauthorised parked vehicle

That bit could be interesting. So if Im parked correctly and I have been clamped unjustly then it wont be an offense for me to remove the clamp?

blackwhite

lynchie wrote: »

Head 31

Reading the actual bill (as opposed to the heads of the bill) - it appears that mgbgt1978 is correct.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2014/5104/b5104s.pdf

The only reference to it being an offence to remove a clamp falls under Part 5 - Clamping on Public Roads (Section 30, Para 9) - where it is introduced as an amendment to the 1961 Act. The section is specific to local authority clamping (performed by the Gardaí, a traffic warden, the Local Authority or a company appointed by the LA).

(9) A person who—

(a) obstructs or impedes a clamping officer, or a person acting under his or her direction, in the performance of his or her functions under this section, or

(b) without being authorised to do so under this section, removes or attempts to remove from a vehicle an immobilisation device fixed to it under this section,

commits an offence.”.