Dáil debates

Wednesday, 1 April 2015

Vehicle Clamping Bill 2014 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages

 

3:05 pm

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

We had a discussion on these issues on Committee Stage. I wish we were discussing parking in its totality and, as a subset, where clamping fits into it but that is not what the Bill is about and I understand that. The amendments are an attempt to moderate the actions taken in extreme cases in the context of clamping.

Many traditional housing estates, which do not contain an apartment, are run by management companies. Sometimes, the developer has a proxy vote giving him a majority. The management company then determines that people must pay clamping fees because a majority vote decides on such initiatives to recoup management fees. This does not dovetail well with the Multi-Unit Development Act 2011. Typically, people are stressed in terms of paying a mortgage and they make a decision on whether to pay the management fee or the mortgage to keep the roof over their heads. In most cases, they are not trying to avoid paying the fee but they simply do not have the money to pay it. I have had people in my clinics in tears over this. Their car has been immobilised for days and they have been unable to go to work. In addition, workers making deliveries and visitors to residents have also been clamped. It is a blunt instrument. These cars are not causing an obstruction on the public road and this clamping policy is a means of collecting the management fee.

I fully appreciate that in the case of an apartment, a management company arrangement will always be needed given there will be shared spaces that require to be managed. However, in the early part of the first decade of the new millennium, the establishment of management companies was routine, whether the development was full of apartments or traditional housing. There needs to be an understanding of what is going on. Clamping is not appropriate as a sanction. Other measures such as the simple contract debt sanction could be pursued without adopting this approach. No court would impose the sanction the clampers can impose. People can run up debts of between €300 and €400 in a week because they do not have the money to release the clamp. It is unfair to treat citizens in that way. An amount is charged per night until the clamping fine is paid and it is a blunt instrument.

Deputies Ellis, Coppinger and I particularly focused on Blanchardstown hospital in the context of clamping fines because that is the hospital about which we receive most complaints. These complaints are ongoing. Clamping is in place 24-7 and does not stop at 5 p.m. People run in and out of the hospital to put money in the machine only to find they have been clamped. I have dealt with cases of families who were visiting relatives in the final days of their lives. That last thing on their minds was to worry about the car being clamped but they came out of the hospital to find it had been, which is inappropriate. They were parked in a designated parking space and, for example, they were not in a disabled space or obstructing traffic. I have no problem with parking charges given, as the Minister said on Committee Stage, we cannot have a scenario where people use hospital car parks such as the one in St. James's Hospital inappropriately. I get that as part of an overall policy but where somebody is trying to have tests done or is visiting a patient who is seriously ill, the use of clamping as a means of sanction is highly inappropriate.

It is not necessary. The only ones gaining from it are the clamping companies. It is not as if the hospital is gaining from it. I hope the Minister will accept these amendments. It is not a question of throwing out an entire policy or legislation, it is about at least taking out some of the worst excesses.

It is interesting to see how Government policy on some issues does not dovetail with other areas of policy. There is a plan for the renewal of rural Ireland. One of the initiatives concerns parking in towns. At the same time, there are towns where part of the reason people will not go near them is the risk of being clamped. Being clamped once is enough to put them off ever coming back. It has a dramatic impact and there are a myriad of arrangements in many towns. It is not just the local authorities, it may be two or three different companies, some of which use clamping as the main sanction. One also finds it at railway stations. This happens when people do not expect it. For example, I was at the railway station in Leixlip where people came to park and get the train to Croke Park on a Sunday or bank holiday Monday. Yes, there are signs, but most people would not expect to come back and have to pay €140 to undo the clamp. This must be better thought out. It is not about modifying the legislation for the clampers, it is about looking at parking policy in its totality and the impact it has on other things. For example, we want to discourage people coming all the way into town when there is a big match on. We want them, for example, to come as far as train stations on the periphery and get the train in. This legislation does not achieve that because of the way it is imposed. There are many different issues, but the most offensive situations are in housing estates, where management companies are using this as a sanction when there is no need to do so, and most offensive of all, in hospitals, which is unfair on people when they are at their lowest.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.