Clamping issue

[Colm R]

Originally Posted by Mark Hennessy

we have unaccountable clampers operating on property of an an unaccountable property company that happen to operate trains.

Post of the year

[weary rushian]

Hi, me again! Am still raging over being clamped by NCPS at Rush & Lusk Station late last year, & despite 2 appeal letters and one from one of my local TDs, NCPS still refuse to refund my money. (Ticket fell off dashboard on very windy day) My question now is, have I exhausted all options open to me in trying to get refunded the €125 or does anyone know if this is the kind of thing that you could bring to the small claims court?

I know I sound like a dog with a bone but am still bristling at the unfairness of it all! Any advice greatly appreciated.

[Thomas Ralph]

You could certainly try the small claims court, but you'll need to hurry on. There's a twelve-month statute of limitations on most claims there.

[Mark Gleeson]

I'd agree with that, you can file online.

In a lot of cases the company doesn't bother to show up, generally resulting in a victory for the little guy

Just need to identify a article of consumer law which has been broken

[hoopsheff]

Just a quick question....under what laws do the clampers have a right to clamp your car? What is the basis (under the law) for the clamping? Is it to make u pay a fine (to unclamp your car) or is it for illegally parking your car (in which case it would seem that you are being punished twice for the same offence -clamping and a fine..which afaik is not legal)

the reason clampers get away with clamping (as far as i can see) is that nobody has challenged this in a court of law (not the small claims court)...and until such time as this happens they will get away with it. I'd imagine that if somebody threatened to do so they would quickly (and quietly) rescind any clamping fine- well thats my view anyways...based off basic law studies from first year college

[Mark Gleeson]

Its private property so they can set the rules.

Pay the correct charge such that the car has permission to be there or else you will be hit with a penalty

Where the games start is when the rules are not clearly stated within the car park or when the car park operator sets up the payment system to catch you out

[Thomas Ralph]

To hoopsheff: it's contract law. In consideration of them permitting you to park your car there, you agree to pay the fee, or to be clamped and pay the declamp charge if you break the rules.

Presumably if they then proceeded to seek a prosecution under the Housing Act or to sue you under the law of trespass for parking on private property, you could say there was a failure of consideration for the clamping agreement and demand that that money be refunded.

Of course the practical reason for clamping is to enforce payment. Since the car parks are unattended, if there was no deterrent there would be no incentive for anyone to pay. In Scotland, where clamping is illegal, privately-owned unattended car parks effectively don't exist.

[Colm Moore]

These car parks have the added benefit of the bye-laws.

[Thomas Ralph]

I don't think CIÉ's bylaws allow clamping (although I haven't read them lately). Veolia's, on the other hand, do.

[Colm Moore]

Ah, what I mean is its an specific offence to mis-park on CIÉ property, whereas in other car parks you are relying on the Housing Acts (prohibition on preventing an occupier from using their own property).

[Thomas Ralph]

Ah. Yes it is.

[Thomas Ralph]

And when I say the Housing Act, I mean section 19C of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994, as inserted by section 24 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002.