• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Annual Reports /
• Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2004

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2004

Chapter 3 - Dublin City Council - Misleading Signs Lead to Parking Fine

Dublin City Council

Misleading Signs Lead to Parking Fine

I received a complaint against Dublin City Council from a motorist about a parking fine issued by the Council. The man had appealed the case but was dissatisfied with the outcome.

He parked his car under a “No Parking” sign at 16.40 on a Saturday. The sign clearly stated that the “No Parking” order was enforceable between the hours of 10.00 and 16.00 Mondays to Saturdays. His car was clamped and removed and he was obliged to pay a fine of €80 before he could get it back. He was fined for “Parking on Clearway”. In this regard a Clearway Sign at another location on the same street indicated that the clearway was enforceable between the hours 07.00 and 10.00 and 16.00 and 19.00 Monday to Saturday. In essence the two signs contradicted each other. The complainant wrote to the Council expressing dissatisfaction and submitted photographic evidence to support his contention that he was entitled to park, in accordance with the sign on the traffic pole.

Control Plus (the clamping company) wrote to him expressing its satisfaction with the street signage and refused to overturn its original decision. He subsequently appealed the fine and requested reimbursement of all his expenses, which included the €80 fine plus €50 photographic expenses. The Council wrote to him and stated that the Appeals Officer found that a refund was not payable because the car was unlawfully parked on the clearway and stated that the street signage in the area was adequate. Following receipt of this letter, the man wrote to me.

I received a report from Dublin City Council which stated that as the car was parked on a clearway, it contravened Article 40 of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997. Article 40 states that the clearway restriction: “shall apply notwithstanding any indication to the contrary given by means of another traffic sign.”

The report acknowledged that the location where the complainant had parked allows loading and unloading between the hours of 10.00 hours and 16.00, but said that after 16.00 the street is a clearway. In essence, Article 40 gives a clearway sign dominance over any other signs in the same street.

The Council accepted that the absence of a clearway sign on the particular traffic pole under which the complainant parked may have given him the impression that it was permissible to park at that location. In recognition of this the Council agreed to refund him the full €130 to cover the clamping charge and the expenses he incurred. The Council also said it would arrange to have the particular traffic pole fitted with a clearway plate. This brought the matter to a satisfactory conclusion and should also ensure that the parking signs at the location will not cause misunderstandings in future.

Back to contents