Clamping beyond the double yellow!

yannakis

There are a million threads about clamping, I know :rolleyes: :mad:

NCPS are clamping in an alley in my neighbourhood. Double yellow line extends only until a certain point, and the tricky part begins where the double yellow ends. Also, they are asking for €120 even though the upper limit is only €100 (please correct me if I'm wrong).

A conscious driver checks the signs (NCPS only, no "no parking"), checks the double yellow, and assumes NCPS clamps only on the double yellow. Right? Sorry pal, NCPS logic = clamped. This is completely unfair, very tricky, and obviously unpredictable.

If they are entitled to clamp on the entire alley, shouldn't there be "no parking" signs or double yellows to make drivers aware?

Edit: Necessary clarification, I haven't been clamped. I'm just a pissed off resident.

coylemj

Is this alley private property? As I understand it, NCPS enforces parking rules in apartment complexes and shopping centres, I'm not aware that any local authority uses them for clamping on public roads.

If it's private property then there is no obligation on anyone to paint double yellow lines, a simple sign saying 'no parking' would suffice as a warning not to park there.

GM228

There is no €100 maximum fee yet as the relevant legislation has not yet commenced.

When you say there was "NCPS only, no "no parking"" signs what exactly did they say? A sign just showing NCPS and nothing else would be unusual.

I'd imagine there must be some sort of "permit only", "no parkin", "clamping" signs etc somewhere or those conditions are somewhere on the NCPS signs.

yannakis

coylemj wrote: »

Is this alley private property?

This is a grey area. The alley in question is not gated, so there is no cues to identify where public ends, and where private starts. What authority can clarify the limits between public and private roads?

I'll give you more details on the location https://goo.gl/maps/qFX5RbJLG1U2. In the screenshot below, orange is the one in question, red are the other two on the same alley, and green another random one I saw recently. Be sure there are more in this area that I simply don't remember right now.

GM228 wrote: »

There is no €100 maximum fee yet as the relevant legislation has not yet commenced.

Thanks for clarifying this, much appreciated.

GM228 wrote: »

When you say there was "NCPS only, no "no parking"" signs what exactly did they say? A sign just showing NCPS and nothing else would be unusual.

I believe photos from the orange point above will be the best answer to this question. The sign from the 1st photo is visible in the 2nd, and that water puddle from the 2nd are visible on the 3rd.

Aka Ishur

While I do think its not very well marked, I also think that's pretty sh1tty parking.

Vicxas

That is some awful parking but i'm assuming the clamping warning covers all the alley as its a fire exit.

yannakis

Vicxas wrote: »

That is some awful parking but i'm assuming the clamping warning covers all the alley as its a fire exit.

Assuming is the keyword here. Some drivers assume it's not, and get a €120 de-clamp fee.

GM228

YanisK wrote: »

This is a grey area. The alley in question is not gated, so there is no cues to identify where public ends, and where private starts. What authority can clarify the limits between public and private roads?

I'll give you more details on the location https://goo.gl/maps/qFX5RbJLG1U2. In the screenshot below, orange is the one in question, red are the other two on the same alley, and green another random one I saw recently. Be sure there are more in this area that I simply don't remember right now.




Thanks for clarifying this, much appreciated.


I believe photos from the orange point above will be the best answer to this question. The sign from the 1st photo is visible in the 2nd, and that water puddle from the 2nd are visible on the 3rd.

Both Rathborne and Royal Canal Park developments (i.e Pelletstown) have not been taken in charge yet by Dublin City Council and therefore the entire areas would be considered private roads.

Looking at the third photo NCPS probably clamped because they are parked on the footway - which isn't actually illegal in a private estate believe it or not, but probably subject to whatever conditions NCPS have - and rightly so.

maximum12

Parked across a foot path. Is it really a surprise why you're clamped?

ThisRegard

The cars are parked on the footpaths?!? If so, you've no argument, anywhere.

Anyway, contact your management company as that's a private development isn't it? The company, in coordination with the management agent, are the ones who organise the clamping.

yannakis

maximum12 wrote: »

Parked across a foot path. Is it really a surprise why you're clamped?

Necessary clarification, I haven't been clamped. I'm just a pissed off resident.

GM228

YanisK wrote: »

Necessary clarification, I haven't been clamped. I'm just a pissed off resident.

You should be more p****d off with people parking on footways then those who are clamping them!

ThisRegard

YanisK wrote: »

Necessary clarification, I haven't been clamped. I'm just a pissed off resident.

Pissed off because your neighbours get clamped for using footpaths for parking?

MojoMaker

That is outrageous parking, no wonder you're pissed off at your neighbours. Bravo to NCPS for taking some sensible action here.

yannakis

We lost the forest chicos.

coylemj wrote: »

If it's private property then there is no obligation on anyone to paint double yellow lines

If there is no obligation for double yellows, I find it tricky that they put them down only for a few meters. What do you think?

kavanada

Was the little mustard car clamped?

yannakis

kavanada wrote: »

Was the little mustard car clamped?

No, neither the other 20 in front of the playground. That part is rather empty in the satellite imagery - in the evenings it's full.

Red is where they have clamped up to date, Green are the legal parking spots (more further to the right down that road). Note nobody parks on the obvious double yellow, that's the only reason I've seen no clamps there.

kavanada

Ok, well that's unfair and unfortunate. The mustard car was as much illegally parked as the other two in the photo, imo.

The green line you drew looks reasonable for parking spaces. The red line not so much due to its proximity to the T-junction, so cars shouldn't be parking there.

coylemj

OP, NCPS have to be engaged by the management company, they're not doing this because they care about pedestrians using that footpath. Their signage clearly indicates private property and they are enforcing rules dictated by the management company so you need to talk to the management company or ask your landlord to clarify the situation with them.