A Dublin man has brought a High Court case challenging the dismissal of his appeal against an €80 fee imposed on him after his car was clamped.
The action has been brought by Eamonn O’Hanrahan, a solicitor of Fairview Strand Dublin, against the Clamping Appeals Officer, which considers appeals against clamping fees, and the National Transport Authority (NTA).
Mr O’Hanrahan claims that the dismissal should be set aside on the grounds it was heard in breach of the requirements of natural and constitutional justice, and in breach of his constitutional rights by allowing submissions and relying on information from the party that clamped him, Dublin Street Parking Services Limited.
He claims he should have been given sight of and an opportunity to respond to the information and submissions before the appeal was determined.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Ciara Mageean: ‘I just felt numb. It wasn’t even sadness, it was just emptiness’
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Carl and Gerty Cori: a Nobel Prizewinning husband and wife team
Mr O’Hanrahan claims Dublin Street Parking Services Ltd, which has a contract with Dublin City Council, clamped his Suzuki Celerio on Fairview Strand on April 2nd of this year.
Dublin Street Parking Services is a notice party to his claim.
Mr O’Hanrahan disputed the clamper’s claim that the car was parked in a clearway, arguing that the appropriate signage was not in place to indicate the existence of a clearway.
He paid the release fee and submitted an appeal to the Clamping Appeals Officer and the NTA.
Last July he was informed his appeal had been refused.
He claims he made submissions and lodged photographs in support of his appeal.
He claims that, under the 2015 Vehicle Clamping Act, appeals officers are required to act independently when considering an appeal.
However, he alleges appeals officers are administering justice in a limited manner and have acted in breach of his constitutional rights by allowing and relying on information from Dublin Street Parking Services that he had no opportunity to respond to.
He also claimed the appeals procedures published on the NTA’s website do not provide for all information submitted to the appeals officer to be given to an appellant.
When the matter came before the court on Monday, Mr Justice Charles Meenan asked if allowing judicial review proceedings over an €80 fine, plus expenses, was “proportional”.
However, he said the applicant enjoys a right of access to the courts in order to have his challenge against the decision heard.
He directed that the application for permission to pursue the action be heard when the other parties in the case are notified and have the opportunity to be represented in court.
The judge said he understands why people are annoyed if their cars are wrongly clamped, but he was not giving the case any priority.
He noted that the other cases in the judicial review list concern challenges by families of children with special needs and autism over refusals to certain care allowances or the provision of certain services.
Those cases, the judge said, would be given greater priority. He adjourned Mr O’Hanrahan’s action to a date in October 2023.
In his judicial review action, Mr O’Hanrahan seeks various orders and declarations from the Court including an order quashing the refusal of his appeal. He is asking for his appeal to be remitted for consideration by another clamping appeals officer.