Corporation: We Can Legally Clamp Vehicles
The Corporation of Hamilton today [May 6] responded to the comments made by the Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner’s on its clamping practices in City car parks.
Yesterday the Senior Magistrate rejected a man’s guilty plea for damaging a clamp on a cycle, saying that the Bermuda Hospitals Board — who clamped it due to a parking issue — had no legal grounds to do so.
When asking the Crown for evidence of an illegal act on the defendants part, the Senior Magistrate said that entities can only do what they are authorized to do by law.
The Senior Magistrate also commented that he was aware of the practice of clamping by the Corporation of Hamilton and he wondered if that practice was sanctioned by law
Secretary and Chief Operating Officer, Ed Benevides, responded by saying “The Municipalities Act clearly states that the Corporation of Hamilton [MA1923 38 (2) (bb)] is authorized to regulate and control of off-street and on-street parking. The Road Traffic Act 1947 13 (1)(b), 13 (3) clearly state the Municipality has the authority to prohibit and regulate parking within the boundaries of the City.”
He continued by saying “The Corporation of Hamilton resolved in 2007 and gave public notice of the main terms of the Ordinance (HAMILTON PAY & DISPLAY PARKING VEHICLE WHEEL CLAMPING 2007) and would have supplied a full copy to anyone who asked.
“The Corporation at the time considered that sufficient publication, the purpose of the publication being to ensure that the citizen has knowledge of and if necessary access to the law as it applies to him, and that purpose having been served by what was done. In addition, all City car parks have signage advising the public they will be clamped for parking violations.”
Mr. Benevides concluded “We have no comment on any other area of the island in regards to this topic.”
However nothing in the act allows the clamper to damage people’s private property… IE car or bike!!!
This is happening far to often!!!
Along with the mobile parking app failing to register correctly..
clamp my bike n I’ll clamp yur b@llz
Does “authorized to regulate and control of off-street and on-street parking” and “authority to prohibit and regulate parking” mean the COH can put a clamp on your vehicle?
According the judge, they cannot do so. So, if COH does not grant a refund or continues to clamp vehicles, we can take them to court…and it seems that we will win.
The act states “the Corporation of Hamilton [MA1923 38 (2) (bb)] is authorized to regulate and control of off-street and on-street parking. The Road Traffic Act 1947 13 (1)(b), 13 (3) clearly state the Municipality has the authority to prohibit and regulate parking within the boundaries of the City” – - this statement is correct.
HOWEVER, nothing in the act indicates that clamping vehicles is authorized as a way to accomplish the above stated purpose.
COH – you are wrong – just admit it, for once.
Q
If you read the article above the Corporation said they had the authority and provided two Acts providing the legislative authority to administer and regulate/ control the parking and the Ordinance advising the penalty for parking violations would be clamping.
@inquiring minds:
The above is an article not law. They cited two pieces of legislation which, as I clearly stated above, with certain powers – agreed to that fact.
However, unlike you, I have read the actual legislation and can attest that nowhere in the legislation does the COH has any legal right to clamp vehicles. They are using the “ordinance” as their legal right when that specific ordinance was never gazetted and vetted through the House – which would make it law.
It is the same way the electronic parking tickets are no longer used as they were not officially gazetted correctly either – - the COH has a history of putting the cart before the horse.
The only place in this country where an organization has the legal right to clamp vehicles, as it is private property, is BMDS.
Q
Hate to burst your bubble but all the Corporation had to do is to pass a resolution to the effect and communicate the same to the public which it clearly did. This includes the signage.
Not sure what you mean by electronic parking tickets as the wardens still use the paper printed and stick to window type.
Well all I can say is I hope you have the courage to put your money where you mouth is because if you get clamped and break the clamp and take it to court I am not so sure as you are that you will win. same goes for magistrate warner. that could be a very expensive lesson
@ inquiring minds—–corporation Hamilton passing resolution is not law…if the corporation had power of law they would be supremely in the house of assembly…gazetting it would have been sufficient public knowledge as is customary and legal to do so.. by law no one has the right to anyones property or to hinder one from using their own property…hence, stealing, preventing liberty, possession, ect, are criminal offences, in regulating parking it does not mean committing an offence to do so, get another job for those clampers, and be lucky we come into Hamilton to Hamilton to shop, as long as a car or other vehicle is not causing disturbance or injuring anyone its against the common law to impede on anothers’ belonging, go join the police force clampers so you can learn about policy and regulations vs law
@Inquiring minds – try re-reading Question’s posts as you clearly missed the point.
The COH does not have authority to clamp in the legislation. It’s really that simple.
Well, a judge says they are wrong…… I am sure the judge is familiar with the Acts and the Ordinance.
If I get a clamp, I will be more than happy to end up in a court room…..I think my chances are very good.
In his ruling, the judge said that clamping is illegal and COH is breaking the law. Can COH be fined or punished for knowingly committing this illegal practice?
that’s a good point. what penalties have been handed down to the CoH for breaking the law? perhaps someone could report this to the necessary authorities?
In this case Warner????…I’m not sure if I would put my money on him…..some of his decisions leave little to be desired……..
they should be fined..Someone needs to challenge it when they are clamped…look it up in the constitution..
I have no problem with the c of h clamping in the parking lots when justified. What I do find a little distressing is how on Saturday mornings in the parking lot opposite the supermart the clampers are out at the crack of dawn clamping cars likely left by responsible drivers the night before at 8:05 in the morning. I have on several occasions noticed clamps on upwards of 15/20 cars on a Saturday morning. Maybe we could have a Saturday morning grace period until 10 am in an effort to discourage drink driving?
That’s a great idea! you should email CADA info.cada@logic.bm and they’ll probably get behind your idea.
it’s not justified..Id love to them have to give all the refunds back…
What the CoH is still clamping when they have no legal right to do so? Let them clamp my car/bike I would destroy the boot and drop it on their doorstep. The have no legal bases for it and have two options. Stop it or get the law passed properly.
Would you all like some cheese with your wine. The Judge was wrong in his interpretation of the law. It’s Archie, seriously !!!
Curious to know that IF it is illegal to clamp vehicles why were they approved as a business ?????…….
The thing I find a bit ridiculous is why bother having tickets if you are just going to clamp someone? Here in Boston you only get clamped if you’ve run up a number of tickets otherwise you just get towed and have to collect your vehicle. Clamping cars simply creates a nuisance for all the people who want to park their cars and can’t because someone who’s been clamped is trying to find someone to remove it. The system is somewhat backwards.
Prohibit and regulate doesn’t mean Clamping it means stoping and controling how people use the car park. They don’t even know or understand the act…Clamping is tampering with private property and prevdnting freddom of movement witch goes against the constitution…C of H need to read it again because what they are doing is unconstitutional..
Prohibit and regulate doesn’t mean Clamping it means controling how people use the car park. They don’t even know or understand the act…Clamping is tampering with private property and preventing freedom of movement witch goes against the constitution…C of H need to read it again because what they are doing is unconstitutional..
The C of H need to be stopped immediatly..
Clamp my car and I’ll cut it off and dump in in the Town Hall!
thats what id do
Clamp a car you deprive a person of their liberty ,their property ,you also could very well endanger life or property if the wrong element is present or if the car driver is afflicted with heart condition or are pregnant,diabetic, have high blood pressure are arthritic , elileptic…if a person is caused harm and you are the cause, you will most certainly have significant difficulties you will have to address…
There are two things you have the right to defend…life and property….and as such are innailiable….
You might have to pick up a child or a disabled person…who does not know some diabolical people have hindered the car from arrival at a specific time.
In the end there is cause and effect .You have to accentuate to positive ,not effectuate to liability.
There are other ways to control parking CoH. In your car parks, put gates that give you a ticket when you arrive to let you in and accepts payment on the way out. Therefore, if I park my car for three days I get the bill for three days.
For street parking we have Parking Officers that routinely go around ticketing people who have overstayed. If someone is there several hours after the expired time then they can call the police to have the vehicle towed.
Clamping defeats the purpose by immobilizing a vehicle from leaving the space. I would hardly call a $100.00 plus $$$ clamp removal fee adequate compensation (for trespassing) on a $1.50 per hour parking space that went over by 20 minutes. The CoH logic shows that they are more interested in penalizing people (cash grab) than regulating parking.
What is next CoH, fees for bike parking so you can start clamping those too? Check your goals CoH as they are clearly not gelling with the community. Make St. George’s the capital again and lets all move our business and trade back there as they are clearly more community focused.
When are we going to see a ‘Not Guilty’ plea go to trial in Hamilton Magistrates Court?
It will be something we will all want to watch.
Hope Senior Magistrate Mr.Warner is on the bench. I’m sure he will do the necessary research and reach the correct conclusions.