Unfairly clamped get refunds

Just under half the claims of unfair clamping dismissed by Dublin's clampers are upheld by Dublin City Council's new parking appeals officer.

In his first six-month report, parking appeals officer Liam Keilthy, who assesses claims against Dublin Street Parking Services (DSPS), has reversed the decision of the clamping company in 48 per cent of cases and has ordered refunds to the appellants.

He has also cautioned de-clamping staff against making "unnecessary comments" to motorists when releasing their cars and said that appeals made by foreign tourists will generally be granted, unless they had parked in a dangerous or "totally inappropriate way".

Mr Keilthy has been leading the council's parking appeals service since last October following the retirement of Ray Campion, who held the job since the introduction of clamping in 1998. Mr Keilthy's appointment coincided with the loss of the clamping contract by Control Plus and its transfer to Park Rite operating as DSPS.

His first report, to be presented to Dublin City Council today, sets out the appeals received and complaints against DSPS and makes recommendations for the future of the service.

Motorists who feel they have been unfairly clamped initially complain directly to DSPS. Those whose appeals are rejected can then apply to the council for a final adjudication. Around 25 per cent of DSPS decisions are appealed.

In his first six months Mr Keilthy processed 241 appeals and has reversed the clamper's decision in 117 cases.

Just under 10 per cent of the appeals were made on medical grounds and these were upheld by Mr Keilthy in 97 per cent of cases.

Some 10.5 per cent of claimants said they had been clamped even though they were entitled to permits on the grounds of disability or local residency. They received a refund in 83 per cent of cases.

Broken pay and display machines were cited in 7.9 per cent of appeals and 68 per cent of these were upheld. The majority of appeals, just under 30 per cent, were from motorists who had purchased tickets which had then fallen off the window, or were in some other way not readable by the clampers.

Mr Keilthy describes this as a standard appeal which is "consistently denied" by DSPS and "consistently accepted" by himself. He recommends that the adhesive on the permits should be changed to ensure it always works. He also recommends that de-clampers should guard against making comments to motorists which could cause "frustration and resentment".

It was not helpful for staff to tell motorists that they could see no basis for their car being clamped, he said, and this was the basis of a number of complaints against DSPS.

Poor signage and road markings, which are the responsibility of the council, also generated a number of appeals. Mr Keilthy has asked the council to consider why it "continues to enforce and sanction appellants and not alter or improve the signage" in some areas.

Mr Keilthy states that he operates a policy of "natural justice and compassion" in relation to appellants.