Hamilton alderman Carlton Simmons has criticised City Hall secretary Ed Benevides and Mayor Graeme Outerbridge, claiming they should never have sought legal clarification on whether clamping was lawful in the capital.

Mr Outerbridge refuted the suggestion yesterday.

He explained that he gave Mr Benevides permission to bring in lawyers, with the authority of the full council, and the legal advice received was to take the matter to court.

“I have been given the authority by the board to get legal counsel on any issue facing the council, at my discretion,” Mr Outerbridge said.

“The secretary acted well within his remit to get a clear understanding of our legal standing. The secretary has done nothing wrong.”

The latest row at City Hall was sparked by a Supreme Court judgement delivered last month by the Chief Justice, who ruled that the Corporation of Hamilton did not have the power to clamp vehicles illegally parked on its property in the city.

The case had been brought by the municipality against the Attorney General to clarify whether its use of clamping was legally enforceable, after a magistrate had insisted on two occasions that it was not.

After the Chief Justice ruled that laws governing clamping in Hamilton had not been properly published, City Hall issued a warning to anyone clamped in the past who planned to sue for compensation.

“The Corporation will make a counterclaim for trespass and will seek damages,” it said in a November 24 statement. “If the Corporation is forced to make such a counterclaim, it will also be seeking the legal fees and costs of doing so.”

Mr Simmons said he had received much “flak” from members of the public for City Hall’s stance yet the controversy could have been avoided by not taking the case to court.

“The reason why we are in this situation is because the secretary decided to launch a case to ratify statements made by a magistrate,” he said. “There was no reason to take any action over it. We didn’t authorise that action.

“The magistrate was simply giving his opinion and never wrote to us formally. The Mayor and secretary went out unilaterally and put it before the courts and that has ramifications for the council.

“This is the unfairness of it. We all get blamed for something going wrong. Those two went and made measures that put us in hot water.”

But Mr Outerbridge said Mr Benevides had “authorisation from myself to get a legal understanding of whether it was in our remit to do what we were doing”.

“We went to the courts to get a clarification,” he said. “Our advice from our lawyers was that we had a very strong case and we’d win the judgment. As it is, it has come out a draw. We are still trying to work out the anomalies of the ruling.”

He added that Mr Simmons spoke only for himself.

Mr Benevides said: “I have done nothing that has not been authorised by the Mayor or the Acting Mayor.”

He said there was a meeting of the council with City Hall’s lawyers to discuss the ruling on November 20, which Mr Simmons did not attend.

The next day, the secretary sent Acting Mayor Donal Smith the proposed statement about counter-suing any claim, and Mr Smith approved it.

Mr Benevides, also chief operating officer for the Corporation, said four people had been in touch since the judgment about claiming a refund.

“I sent them the same statement,” he said.

He could not say whether City Hall would appeal the Chief Justice’s ruling.

Alderman Gwyneth Rawlins said she would not add anything to the Mayor’s statement. It was not possible to reach Mr Smith.