Like the Roy Keane World Cup controversy four years ago, folk here seem implacably divided on the issue. For every enthusiastic advocate of clamping, there seems to be someone vociferously opposed to the practice. If there is any shared common ground, it was long ago lost in a farrago of accusations and recriminations.

All this started exactly one year ago when apartment owners at a poorly attended AGM voted by a small majority to employ a private company to clamp vehicles parked illegally in the development. People complained that night about arriving home to "nd their parking bay occupied, leaving them no option but to discommode some other car owner by driving into the "rst available empty space. Other residents argued that an insuf"cient number of spaces . . . some threebed apartments had been allocated only one parking bay . . . meant drivers who didn't own a bay had little option but to park their cars illegally in the complex.

'Warning: Car Clamping In Operation', read the signs erected throughout the development a week later. Letters in the post advised residents that in future car owners would be "ned and their vehicles clamped if they parked anywhere other than in their own private bays.

Then, at the last minute, the management agency had a sudden change of heart and cancelled the move. Perhaps they hoped the signs alone would act to remind errant drivers of their civic duty. Or maybe, having calculated the degree of opposition, they anticipated trouble if the new regulations were introduced.

For a while, the development did appear less congested, with fewer cars parked erratically. Eventually, the issue seemed to fade.

Two months ago, it was suddenly back on the agenda when an apartment owner complained that a row of illegally parked cars had one night blocked the path of an ambulance responding to an emergency call from a resident in one of the blocks.

Notices were placed in the foyer of each block advising residents of the imminent introduction of car clamping. Freshly-painted double yellow lines demarcated common areas where henceforth it would be an offence to park.

Everyone anticipated a rumbustious reaction from the owners of the "rst vehicles to be immobilised. Everyone was right.

A taxi driver had the distinction of becoming the "rst resident to have his vehicle clamped. His immediate response was to ring the clampers and threaten to shoot several members of staff. When it was pointed out to him that the conversation was being recorded, he quickly adopted a contrite tone and soon coughed up the 90 "ne.

An email circulated to members of the residents' committee from an irate resident who fell foul of the clampers described them as "opportunistic Nazis patrolling the area in the hope of making a quick buck".

Other early victims of the new parking restrictions have adopted a more calculated approach to their predicament. Signage advises transgressors that a 90 "ne will be imposed for every day their vehicle remains clamped. I wondered about the apparent unconcern of the owner of an SUV which remained clamped for the best part of a week.

Then one morning I noticed the vehicle gone and the yellow metal clamp with its neatly severed chain discarded on the footpath.

Presumably the owner had managed to borrow a pair of exceptionally strong wire cutters.

After an initial "urry of activity, with cars being clamped daily, the message that the clampers meant business did sink home. Today, immobilised cars are a rare sight.