Vehicle act 2015

BoatMad

I see this bill was signed into law in May. Only in Ireland , would you have legislation regulating private clamping where no legislative basis actually exists to perform private clamping at all.

I notice a clause in the bill, where if the person clamped isnt the owner and has not been authorised to park in that area, that the fine is nullified and the clamp to be removed.

I see a standard letter to the wife

" honey , you are authorised to borrow and use my car at any tine , but you are specifically not allowed to park in areas subject to private clamping and so regulated under the vehicle clamping act 2015 "

When she's clamped I can fax that to the clamp operators. !!!!!!

( also company van and car drivers should also take note )

jd

I think you are referring to this? (From the act)

(5) Where the owner of a vehicle that is parked and to which a clamp has been fixed or is relocated shows to the satisfaction of the parking controller or clamping operator concerned that the vehicle was so parked while being used by a person other than the owner and that such use was not authorised by the owner, the controller or operator shall waive the relevant charge and he or she shall remove or cause the removal of the clamp from the vehicle.

I'd say they'd be looking for written confirmation that the car was reported as stolen. Or are you referring to another section?

Special Circumstances

jd wrote: »

I think you are referring to this? (From the act)



I'd say they'd be looking for written confirmation that the car was reported as stolen. Or are you referring to another section?

That sounds like a correct understanding of it. Pity though!

BoatMad

shows to the satisfaction of the parking controller or clamping operator concerned that the vehicle was so parked while being used by a person other than the owner and that such use was not authorised by the owner

it doesnt say anything about stolen,

it says "the vehicle was so parked " , "while being used by a person other than the owner" and "that such use was not authorised by the owner"

i.e. the " use" , i.e. where it was parked, was not " authorised by the owner". it does not say that the totality of " Use" was not authorised

jd

It'd be up to the judge to decide, if it came to court.
Here is one of the debates
https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2014-10-15a.203
16.4 became 17.5 after various amendments

The Senator is focusing on section 16(4) which states that if a vehicle is stolen, the person who owns the vehicle is not subject to the clamping fee if he or she can state that their vehicle was stolen. As currently drafted, this section does not require the person to notify the Garda that their vehicle has been stolen because this is consistent with the way we handle an issue such as this one across the body of our road safety legislation. Having consulted with the Attorney General, I am advised that if we were to raise the onus of proof regarding this issue in the Bill, it would raise questions as to how we handle this issue in other road safety legislation. I cannot accept the Senator's amendment, although I understand the reasoning behind it, because of the consequences of this change in this Bill for the remaining body of road safety legislation.
It would raise questions regarding why that threshold was not adjusted elsewhere. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the amendment the Senator has proposed. As I have said, it points to an important theme in our road safety legislation. Those of us who have had our cars clamped know that it is a difficult experience for an individual to go through. If a person's car is stolen, and the stolen car is then clamped, it is a double misfortune for him or her. This Bill recognises that by making provision in cases in which people can prove the car was stolen. Proof of notification of the Garda, which most people would be required to do anyway, will be adequate under this Bill. I am not requiring such notification to take place because I want to be consistent about how we handle issues like this across all our road safety legislation.

BoatMad

indeed, however as was stated, they cannot user the term " stolen". merely that its use was " unauthorised " , even extending the phase " use" from parking to all uses, it still doesnt have to be officially stolen to be unauthorised

my partner does load of things I dont " authorise ":D:D:D

BMJD

Meanwhile in Lidl...

Pov06

BMJD wrote: »

Meanwhile in Lidl...

Did I ever tell ya'll the story when my mother got clamped in a LIDL carpark?

BMJD

Pov06 wrote: »

Did I ever tell ya'll the story when my mother got clamped in a LIDL carpark?

She went back in to purchase a removal tool from their wide range of clamp removers??

pcardin

BMJD wrote: »

Meanwhile in Lidl...

What an appropriate name...Parkside

daheff

I also see they've set a maximum release fee of 100 EUR. Does anybody know how that then is to be applied for places like Irish Rail car parks (where they operate under seperate Bye Laws)?

pcardin

daheff wrote: »

I also see they've set a maximum release fee of 100 EUR. Does anybody know how that then is to be applied for places like Irish Rail car parks (where they operate under seperate Bye Laws)?

....or in place where I live where APCOA or whatever them losers are called charge €120 for this pleasure.

Marcusm

BoatMad wrote: »

indeed, however as was stated, they cannot user the term " stolen". merely that its use was " unauthorised " , even extending the phase " use" from parking to all uses, it still doesnt have to be officially stolen to be unauthorised

my partner does load of things I dont " authorise ":D:D:D

"Parked...while being used...and such use...". I can assure you that the only reasonable construction of that is the use by the person on that occasion and not the merely the action of parking itself.


As regards the act of clamping, while I deplore it, it was not necessary to authorise clamping per se as it was not explicitly outlawed. The real issue is why they have chosen to regulate clamping which has caused so much difficulty in Ireland and the UK where it has been excluded in favour of a proper parking charge for unauthorised use. That of course would require a proper charge/fee recovery system including distraight of goods but of course that couldn't be used here. Instead, we have a costly, ineffective system which causes grief.

daheff

pcardin wrote: »

....or in place where I live where APCOA or whatever them losers are called charge €120 for this pleasure.

I'd guess that if you ever had to pay the 120€ fee you could report them for breach of the law. I believe there was something in the law about over charging too.

GARAGE.IE

Does this new act mention any penalties for removing a clamp if you don't want to pay the screwage charge?

daheff

GARAGE.IE wrote: »

Does this new act mention any penalties for removing a clamp if you don't want to pay the screwage charge?

I don't believe it does. I reckon same laws apply as previously. It seems to be moreso an act to put some regulations around the industry.

As far as I can see, if you are on private property and clamped, so long as you can remove the clamp without doing any damage to it, then that's the end of the story.

different though if you are on council /CIE property as they are covered by bye laws.

BoatMad

GARAGE.IE wrote: »

Does this new act mention any penalties for removing a clamp if you don't want to pay the screwage charge?

It remains criminal damage

Drummerboy08

BoatMad wrote: »

It remains criminal damage

That would depend on how it's removed.

GARAGE.IE

BoatMad wrote: »

It remains criminal damage

Could you provide a source for that?

nifheorais

The NTA will be overseeing this act but it is not in force as an order has not been made yet!

TeaBagMania

BoatMad wrote: »

It remains criminal damage

How can they prove the vehicle owner removed the clamp? It’s always possible there is a mad man on the loose with an angle grinder cutting clamps off everyone’s motor

kirving

Or a meteorite fell out of the sky and hit the lock.

Markcheese

TeaBagMania wrote:

How can they prove the vehicle owner removed the clamp? It’s always possible there is a mad man on the loose with an angle grinder cutting clamps off everyone’s motor

Walk away from the car, put on a base ball cap and take off your jacket , return with declamping instrument of choice , declamp..then leave and change again ... when you return the clamping fairy has been , allowing you to leave in peace.

BoatMad

Markcheese wrote: »

Walk away from the car, put on a base ball cap and take off your jacket , return with declamping instrument of choice , declamp..then leave and change again ... when you return the clamping fairy has been , allowing you to leave in peace.

video evidence,

or perhaps you suggest that you add perjury

" sir " did you remove that claim
" err, justice", " err, no it was a meteor "

now the sentences for penury or contempt are much greater then any penalty for clamping

seriously the thought processes of some people