15 minutes grace, yes or no ?

Bugalugs · 22-10-2013 10:38AM #1

Hi ,

I got clamped and appealed but keep getting generic replies rejecting my appeal but not answering my questions at all. Can anyone answer the following -
1. are you 'entitled' to fifteen minutes grace after the warning notice is put on the car. the guy at ncps who i called to get unclamaped told me 'yes' but i was clamped 11 minutes after notice.
2. the warning notice was put on my car at 6.35pm but my ticket was good until 6.35pm - small point but was i not technically still legally parked ?
3. a good portion of the the warning notice was blank in so much as none of the boxes were ticked advising as to what i did wrong and no attendant id filled in. i know this is a technicality but what is the point of having them on the notice if they can be left blank.

any answers to the above would be greatly appreciated.

Atlantic Dawn · 22-10-2013 10:41AM

NCPS is a private clamping company which are not yet licenced by the government so there's no official grace period, it's up to themselves if they want to clamp a car or not once they have landowners permission.

Anan1 · 22-10-2013 10:44AM

I'm going to take a guess and say that the warning notice is a courtesy rather than an entitlement. The same would presumably go for the grace period - is there any mention of time on the warning notice?

Bugalugs · 22-10-2013 11:21AM

no mention of 'grace' on the warning notice but the operator at NCPS whom i spoke with told me there was fifteen minutes grace period.

biko · 22-10-2013 11:21AM

I've heard about this 15 min grace but never seen it in writing.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-10-2013 12:57PM

NCPS are a bunch of unregulated cowboys who can do whatever they want it seems.

Don't pay them - they won't take you to court as they don't want their industry shot down.

Remove the clamp (without criminal damage of course) and give it back.

Anan1 · 22-10-2013 01:01PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

NCPS are a bunch of unregulated cowboys who can do whatever they want it seems.

The OP has already admitted that they were clamped because they went over the time. In this case at least NCPS aren't doing 'whatever they want', just what it says on the sign.

djimi · 22-10-2013 01:09PM

Anan1 wrote: »

The OP has already admitted that they were clamped because they went over the time. In this case at least NCPS aren't doing 'whatever they want', just what it says on the sign.

Thats not entirely true though. If they issue a 15 minute warning and then decide to clamp 11 minutes into that warning then they are basically playing by, and breaking, their own rules.

The problem for the OP is that all appeals and disputes are carried out through NCPS themselves, meaning that they can pretty much make things up as they go along to suit themselves.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-10-2013 01:09PM

Anan1 wrote: »

The OP has already admitted that they were clamped because they went over the time. In this case at least NCPS aren't doing 'whatever they want', just what it says on the sign.

I didn't say that they are I said that they can do.

In any case, pedantry aside, (and even you must agree with this one Anan1 surely) the OP is much better advised to not "pay and appeal" -as essentially you are appealing to the same unregulated company that clamped you. So you have two chances of getting your money back, slim and none. And slim just left the building.

Anan1 · 22-10-2013 01:18PM

djimi wrote: »

Thats not entirely true though. If they issue a 15 minute warning and then decide to clamp 11 minutes into that warning then they are basically playing by, and breaking, their own rules.

Absolutely, if any reference to a 15 minute warning can be found in writing.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

In any case, pedantry aside, (and even you must agree with this one Anan1 surely) the OP is much better advised to not "pay and appeal" -as essentially you are appealing to the same unregulated company that clamped you. So you have two chances of getting your money back, slim and none. And slim just left the building.

Why should the OP get their money back if they weren't wrongly clamped?

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-10-2013 01:28PM

Anan1 wrote: »

Absolutely, if any reference to a 15 minute warning can be found in writing.Why should the OP get their money back if they weren't wrongly clamped?

Seeing as clamping (other than as authorised by DCC or any other state body) is not legal. They did not consent to their vehicle being immobilized, so why should they pay a fine imposed by someone that is not legally entitled to issue RTA fines?

bladespin · 22-10-2013 01:33PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Seeing as clamping (other than as authorised by DCC or any other state body) is not legal.

Are you sure about that? I heard something before but don't think it related to private spaces.

Anan1 · 22-10-2013 01:36PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Seeing as clamping (other than as authorised by DCC or any other state body) is not legal.

Give me a link to legislation prohibiting private clamping. And if you're going to quote S113 then don't pretend that the words 'without reasonable cause' are invisible.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

They did not consent to their vehicle being immobilized so why should they pay a fine imposed by someone that is not legally entitled to issue RTA fines?

Yes they did, when they parked in a privately owned car park. If they'd respected the owner's rules then they wouldn't have been clamped.

Jesus. · 22-10-2013 01:45PM

That clown John Walters went to prison for a night claiming he was outrageously clamped being just one minute over time. But when you looked closer, he was actually sixteen minutes over time. He was including the "grace" period too. A stupid publicity stunt that fed his ego sufficiently.

I don't know what the story is with the OP's situation but I've generally no sympathy for people who get clamped, even though I think clampers are opportunistic and ofttimes extortionate. I've been clamped many times in my life but each time it was because I took a chance by not putting a ticket up or leaving it too late. Never complained, just paid the fine. On Xmas Eve last year I pulled into a shop and ran in to get a newspaper so literally wasn't more than 60 seconds. Came out to find the guy had just started to clamp it and had to give him 100 quid on the spot. Another bloke just had his clamped and came back with a McDonald's take away under his arm and went absolutely apoplectic, shouting and roaring like a lunatic while everyone going past, stopped and looked on. I thought what a fool. You took a chance, got nailed but now you're complaining?

Still, I hope you get your money back OP but if you can't do the time don't do the crime!

Caliden · 22-10-2013 01:52PM

Jesus. wrote: »

That clown John Walters went to prison for a night claiming he was outrageously clamped being just one minute over time. But when you looked closer, he was actually sixteen minutes over time. He was including the "grace" period too. A stupid publicity stunt that fed his ego sufficiently.

I don't know what the story is with the OP's situation but I've generally no sympathy for people who get clamped, even though I think clampers are opportunistic and ofttimes extortionate. I've been clamped many times in my life but each time it was because I took a chance by not putting a ticket up or leaving it too late. Never complained, just paid the fine. On Xmas Eve last year I pulled into a shop and ran in to get a newspaper so literally wasn't more than 60 seconds. Came out to find the guy had just started to clamp it and had to give him 100 quid on the spot. Another bloke just had his clamped and came back with a McDonald's take away under his arm and went absolutely apoplectic, shouting and roaring like a lunatic while everyone going past, stopped and looked on. I thought what a fool. You took a chance, got nailed but now you're complaining?

Still, I hope you get your money back OP but if you can't do the time don't do the crime!

Clamping by county councils are legal and have their place in law.

Clamping by independent companies on private property does not.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-10-2013 01:56PM

Anan1 wrote: »

Give me a link to legislation prohibiting private clamping. And if you're going to quote S113 then don't pretend that the words 'without reasonable cause' are invisible.

Yes they did, when they parked in a privately owned car park. If they'd respected the owner's rules then they wouldn't have been clamped.

Privately owned, but publicly accessible. Meaning it is not private property where the law is concerned. Access is granted to the general public therefore the property is not considered "private property" - hence why you need tax/insurance/nct to be at your local Tesco carpark and can be ticketed by AGS if you do not. If it were truly pricate property then the rules of the RTA would not apply.

Lets get this straight, one cannot interfere with the motion of a mechanically propelled vehicle without the owners consent.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-10-2013 01:56PM

Caliden wrote: »

Clamping by county councils are legal and have their place in law.

Clamping by independent companies on private property does not.

Thanks, this is the crux of the issue.

Caliden · 22-10-2013 02:06PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Thanks, this is the crux of the issue.

I think I've got it wrong though as I've said private property but as you've said above a housing estate publicly accessible is not private property.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-10-2013 02:07PM

Caliden wrote: »

I think I've got it wrong though as I've said private property but as you've said above a housing estate publicly accessible is not private property.

The location doesn't matter though, clamping by private companies is not legislated for - regardless of where it is. (Other than by council clampers)

Anan1 · 22-10-2013 02:13PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Privately owned, but publicly accessible. Meaning it is not private property where the law is concerned. Access is granted to the general public therefore the property is not considered "private property" - hence why you need tax/insurance/nct to be at your local Tesco carpark and can be ticketed by AGS if you do not. If it were truly pricate property then the rules of the RTA would not apply.

Rather than trying to use the law as a fig leaf, let's look at what's actually going on here. Someone builds a car park and, reasonably enough, asks that people using it follow certain rules. Assuming these rules are clearly signposted, common decency dictates that you either follow them or park elsewhere. The OP did neither, which is why they were clamped.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Lets get this straight, one cannot interfere with the motion of a mechanically propelled vehicle without the owners consent.

Again, do you have a link to legislation backing up this opinion?

Guy:Incognito · 22-10-2013 02:21PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Seeing as clamping (other than as authorised by DCC or any other state body) is not legal. They did not consent to their vehicle being immobilized, so why should they pay a fine imposed by someone that is not legally entitled to issue RTA fines?

Did the owner of the land consent to the op abanoning their car for the amount of time they did? The op denied them the use of their property.

Del2005 · 22-10-2013 02:25PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Privately owned, but publicly accessible. Meaning it is not private property where the law is concerned. Access is granted to the general public therefore the property is not considered "private property" - hence why you need tax/insurance/nct to be at your local Tesco carpark and can be ticketed by AGS if you do not. If it were truly pricate property then the rules of the RTA would not apply.

If this is the case why do the Gardaì and council ignore abandoned vehicles in my development which is completely open to the public. We've had to get several no tax, nct or insurance cars removed by private operators.

pa990 · 22-10-2013 02:25PM

morally YES
legally NO

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-10-2013 02:33PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Did the owner of the land consent to the op abanoning their car for the amount of time they did? The op denied them the use of their property.

Public access is granted therefore yes obviously they did.

Anan1 wrote: »

Rather than trying to use the law as a fig leaf, let's look at what's actually going on here. Someone builds a car park and, reasonably enough, asks that people using it follow certain rules. Assuming these rules are clearly signposted, common decency dictates that you either follow them or park elsewhere. The OP did neither, which is why they were clamped.

Again, do you have a link to legislation backing up this opinion?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0113.html

Also the common decency that you refer to is both (a) totally irrelevant given that clamping is never decent and (b) decency is not a legal concept.

Finally, I can make rules and signs whatever I want but they are not legally enforceable

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-10-2013 02:34PM

Del2005 wrote: »

If this is the case why do the Gardaì and council ignore abandoned vehicles in my development which is completely open to the public. We've had to get several no tax, nct or insurance cars removed by private operators.

You can't use garda indifference or inertia as an example. Badly actioned but correctly legislated.

Guy:Incognito · 22-10-2013 02:37PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Public access is granted therefore yes obviously they did

For whatever length of time suits the user and no obligation to pay for it or any restrictions?

irishjig69b · 22-10-2013 02:40PM

I was clamped twice and managed to get them off easy enuf, both times I was within 15 mins grace period. Got only one letter ignored it, never heard anything since :-)

Jesus. · 22-10-2013 02:53PM

Caliden wrote: »

Clamping by independent companies on private property does not.

You wha'?

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-10-2013 03:00PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

For whatever length of time suits the user and no obligation to pay for it or any restrictions?

You can't allow access on one hand and then take it away.
If you open your gates, your gates are open!

deandean · 22-10-2013 03:05PM

It is my understanding that the 'Grace' period applies immediately after you park your car.

This gives you time to go get change, buy a ticket and stick the ticket in your car.

There is no 'Grace' period upon expiry of your ticket. 1 minute over, you can be clamped.

And of course any 'Grace' period is completely at the discretion of the clamper.

Bugalugs · 22-10-2013 03:19PM

€125 euro is bitter pill to swallow and i guess as their own phone operator told me that there was a 15 minute grace period, i had hope that the clamper miscalculated by clamping me 11 minutes after the warning instead of 16 and hoped i had good ground for an appeal but i can see i am on a hiding to nothing.

I half entertained the notion of a second appeal for which i have to pay €20 but i think the addage -
"fool me once - shame on you, fool me twice - shame on me " applies here !!

15 minutes grace, yes or no ?

Comments