Getting clamped at Train station

L1011 wrote: »

No clamper has ever been willing to go to court to prove they have reasonable cause because of the risk of killing their entire industry in one high enough court judgement. I suspect reasonable cause couldn't be shown either - "the car was blocking something I own, so I made sure it blocked it for longer, your honour..."

Can't imagine you'd be a popular man in an industry full of dodgy characters!

Entire situation is a field of grey and once you can argue solidly enough, they will not risk it


Some train stations have non CIE owned carparks.

The reasonable cause could be as a result of failure to abide by agreed conditions of a contract under the principles of volenti non fit injuria (i.e a voluntary assumption of risk), something which has already been addressed by the Supreme Court to be lawful when a contract is concerned in Hussey vs Twomey [2009] 3 IR 293.

Whilst not dealing with private clamping per se it made the principles used for private clamping lawful when someone fails to pay for parking and adequate notice (i.e the terms of a contract and the actions for breaking such) is given, although it is uncertain if the signage of terms under a consumer contract qualifies under the ruling as opposed to say a verbal contract. I suspect if it was tested the HC (or ultimately the SC) would clarify it does, especially when the Vehicle Clamping Act 2015 is finally commenced as it will give legislative regulation to private clamping

Issues however could still arise when someone has paid to park and it expires as opposed to someone who failed to pay in the first place, in that case the fee must be reasonable taking into account how much the clamping actually costs to apply etc.

Indeed some car parks are not owned by CIE but the Transport Act 1950 covers lands owned or occupied by CIE.

L1011 wrote: »

But no clamping firm is willing to let it be tested - and I assume they've received sufficient legal advice, and separately at that. If they were confident of success I'm sure they'd do it rather than forfeit revenue (and incur costs - clamping, declamping, admin, refunds) consistently.

Take "not owned" to be "not owned or occupied" as in entirely private and merely adjacent and advertised. Nearly wrote occupied but expected issues with that in relation to the idea of operators leasing, etc, etc. People are going to consider clamping there as 'clamping at the train station' even when it does not involve CIE.

Long may the legal greyness continue here - the correct course of a Vehicle Clamping Act should have been to ban it as in Scotland and England & Wales; not allowing it.

Private clamping is not illegal per se in England and Wales, just Scotland, it's legal with lawful authority. It has in fact specifically been tested and ruled to be lawful in England and Wales prior to the Protection of Freedoms Act under the principles of volenti non fit injuria, (due to a legal loophole in the Protectiom of Fredoms Act it still stands apparently due to the common law lawful authority from the Appeals Court-open to correction though), the same principles which have already been ruled to be legal here by our own Supreme Court.

I suspect the only reason why it hasn't specifically been tested here is due to costs and resources, in reality such a test case would be brought by the person clamped not the clampers and there is unlikely to be anyone with the resources to take on such a case to the HC or SC.

In light of the original persuasive judgement in England and Wales and the impending regulation of private clamping under the Vehicle Clamping Act 2015 I think a test case here would confirm it perfectly legal as the principles behind it as already stated have already been tested and confirmed to be legal here.

As the vehicle clamping act was a Varadkar flight of fancy, I'm not entirely sure it will be commenced - ever.

It still stands that clamping firms consistently refund/release rather than go to court. Theorising why doesn't alter that.

stumbled across this thread as got caught out at heuston too , i had my daughter and usually run over to see she gets through the gate as shes only 14.
Typical this day the train gate wasnt open so was there about 5 minutes , caught between leaving her on her own or running back to the car etc
€125 , very very very painful esp at this time of year.
I put an appeal in but dont hold out much hope

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And 125 is not a large expense for a car owner to face, if anything it's at the low end for costs of unexpected maintenance.

Most antagonistic, ignorant post of the thread. Written solely to annoy.
Well done.

hawkwind23 wrote: »

Usually i pull in and drop her off , you know the platform number and can watch her go through , so happened on that day she had loads of bags and i wanted to help her to the gate.
suppose in hindsight we should of all went to the car park but usually its set down and drop off , a matter of seconds.

your out of touch if you think the average person can afford €125 for a parking fine!

I've dropped off and picked up people at Heuston for years now and have seen the parking attendants at work. At busy times they were on patrol all the time and while irksome they usually give a few minutes grace or a "hurry up" grunt before they clamp. There is one lad who is/was stickier than others; chances are that you were gone longer than you felt. Not much comfort but it's a bummer when it happens.

beauf wrote: »

You're meant to. That's the whole point of a deterrent. "a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something."

Like being able to afford groceries for the rest of the month?

That is the reality for some people who have to pay out an unexpected €125. Don't say "you can't afford a car then" because that is how close many people are to destitution. The working poor are being penalised enough. A maximum clamping fee of €50 would be enough of a deterrent for most people. It's immoral to extort more than that from people.

quietsailor wrote: »

So what do you do when you get a €200 emergency car repair bill - just don't pay it because "your out of touch if you think the average person can afford €200 for a repair " that doesn't happen in the real world, if you own a car, motorbike, bicycle you budget for unexpected costs so you should always have money to pay a fine.

What your really saying is that you don't want to follow the rules - well tough luck. The rules are there and unless your actively out there doing something to change them stop giving out about them

I was clamped just after I have paid out €400 in unexpected costs for repair to my car. Paying the €400 was hard but at least I got some tangible benefit for it.

I agree that there should be some penalty for parking illegally but €125 is too much for most people. Those who can afford to pay €125 are in the minority and those who are advocating it are either very rich or shills for companies like NCPS.

Emme wrote: »

Like being able to afford groceries for the rest of the month?

That is the reality for some people who have to pay out an unexpected €125. Don't say "you can't afford a car then" because that is how close many people are to destitution. The working poor are being penalised enough. A maximum clamping fee of €50 would be enough of a deterrent for most people. It's immoral to extort more than that from people.



I was clamped just after I have paid out €400 in unexpected costs for repair to my car. Paying the €400 was hard but at least I got some tangible benefit for it.

I agree that there should be some penalty for parking illegally but €125 is too much for most people. Those who can afford to pay €125 are in the minority and those who are advocating it are either very rich or shills for companies like NCPS.

I think the point being made is that as a responsible car owner, you should ideally always have a couple of hundred emergency money to hand. The perceived value of what you spend it on doesn't really come in to it. You're out the money either way.

Emme wrote: »

I agree that there should be some penalty for parking illegally but €125 is too much for most people. Those who can afford to pay €125 are in the minority and those who are advocating it are either very rich or shills for companies like NCPS.

In which case, don't park your car illegally..

AnneFrank wrote: »

what type of person works for these companies.
A job i would never, ever do.

A decent person looking for a wage perhaps, if I were unemployed and struggling for a job I'd take one most definately without a second thought.

And what type of person am I, someone who would do such a job? A decent person.

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Suits me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON-7v4qnHP8

Losty Dublin wrote: »

In which case, don't park your car illegally..

I did not intentionally park illegally. I made an error when renewing my park by text and missed a few hours. If the clamper had come a few hours later I would have been fine.

I envy all you people who have never made mistakes and have limitless money. It's different in the real world, I hope you never have to live there :rolleyes:

€125 is a lot of money. Which is why I always get a ticket, even if it's for a few minutes. Costs much less than the fine and no nasty surprises to come back to!

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

And judgmental of others, assuming we're all loaded.

If you don't have a problem paying fine of €125 you are more than likely financially secure.

Those who run the clamping companies deserve to be paid in the misfortunes, illnesses, stresses and sorrows of those they clamp as well as in money. Obviously we can't hand that over with the money but karma can be a b*tch.

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Oh ffs behave, what sort of world are we living in where if YOU break the rules not only do you not accept the consequences but then go on to wish death and dismemberment on those applying the penalties.

No personal responsibilities in this world.

Indeed. You probably think that people who have lost their homes are entirely responsible for it because they were stupid enough to buy at the top of the market, couldn't hold onto their jobs and bought food for their children instead of paying the mortgage.

I don't wish harm on those applying the clamps, they are only doing a job and jobs aren't easy to come by. I don't wish those at the top of the companies any good. They are overcharging, using bullying tactics to extort money out of people and wrongly clamping people in many cases. They may repay some of those they wrongly clamp but in the meantime those people suffer while they wait to be unclamped.

I missed payment by a few hours because I was distracted and made a mistake. However, not everyone who is clamped is dumb, law-evading, criminal, irresponsible...insert whatever other disparaging word you can think of.

A woman put her VALID parking ticket upside down in her car before rushing off to get a train at 8am. She came back at 6pm to find her car clamped. She had arranged to pick up her children from the childminders at 6.30. The clampers said they would take the clamp off her car in an hour or two. She had to frantically call around family and friends looking for somebody to pick up her children. While she was waiting in the dark carpark she was harrassed by local youths. All because she had put her VALID ticket upsidedown!

A woman, her children and the kind person who collected her children suffered because a clamp happy employee didn't bother to check that her ticket was valid. I'm sure some people here think he was a very efficient employee and will deserve any bonus he gets from the clamping company. Hopefully he will have enough money to buy himself a pair of new jackboots. Now I have invoked Godwin's law!!!

Emme wrote: »

A woman put her VALID parking ticket upside down in her car before rushing off to get a train at 8am. She came back at 6pm to find her car clamped. She had arranged to pick up her children from the childminders at 6.30. The clampers said they would take the clamp off her car in an hour or two. She had to frantically call around family and friends looking for somebody to pick up her children. While she was waiting in the dark carpark she was harrassed by local youths. All because she had put her VALID ticket upsidedown!

Do you mean upsidedown as in the text was upsidedown? Or the ticket was placed text side down meaning that the clamper had no way of knowing it was a ticket?