Abandoned bikes and cycle stand hoggers

beverick

We have a problem with 'abandoned' bikes in the cycle area at work.

There are 20 cycle stands giving 40 places (which sounds good until you know that there are 5000 staff on site). However, at the last count there were 17 bikes that appear to have been abandoned by their owners. I know for a fact that the owner of one of them left at christmas.

The building manager says he can't do anything to stop it happening as staff have a right to leave their bikes as long as they want (I occasionally leave mine for a couple of days if I'm travelling to our other offices between commutes). Also, if he cuts a security device and moves the bike device he's potentially committing criminal damage and theft.

As I assume this is a problem at other sites has anyone come across an effective or easy way of stopping this from happening or resolving the issue when it does?

Bob

gtvlusso

Nope - Same issue at my work.

However, at my wifes work they give 1month leeway - if the bike is still there, it goes to a bicycle re-cycling scheme - they cut the lock and off it goes!

We are trying to get the facilities at my place to do this.

I liken it to car drivers leaving their cars in spaces.....we have limited car parking too. There would be uproar if people abandoned cars!!!

Furbes

What my work done was to send an e-mail around to all users regarding the amount of bikes left in the racks for long periods (over a month with no usage) , stating any abandoned bikes will be removed within 2 weeks . Several staff had left the company , but left bikes behind - they were removed & put into storage (never reclaimed) .

Your manager was right about the cutting of locks (that's a charge of criminal damage over here) , unless it was blocking an emergency/fire exit . All you can really do is find out who owns what bike & if they are no longer in the employ of the company , the bikes CAN be removed & put into storage for an agreeable period of time .

Hope this helps

Greg T

We seem to have a vigilante who targets abandoned bikes...

Bikes with a thick layer of dust on the saddle just get stacked up together against a wall freeing up the bike stands, the exception is where they are chained to the stands.....

The abandoned bike graveyard just gets bigger.

Who is the mystery bike stand defender?

snooks

At my work, in the daily newsletter we occasionally get a note around saying that all bikes need to be removed (for essential maintenance or some other reason) giving say a months notice with more reminders closer to the time.

Any bikes left there that weekend get removed, stored for 3 months (I think though this could just be 1 month) then disposed of. All fair IMHO

We also have around 250 spaces and a waiting list, they can also see (by security cards) who uses their access and who doesn't..If you don't, you get a reminder, asking whether you'd still like to keep your spot

the_hundredth_idiot

Similar problem in my office, although not as extreme. There are at least half-a-dozen bikes which have been abandoned. They are generally just cheap hybrids and are so covered in dust it's pretty clear that the owners have long moved on.

One of the bikes has been largely stripped - pedals, brake pads, tyres, tubes and so on - not much more than the frame, the bare wheels and, of course, the lock is left. Stuff is starting to go from some of the other bikes as well.

Most have a note on them from our security saying that if they are not removed by the owner within 2 weeks, security will break the lock and remove them - the note is dated October 2008!

With the nicer weather, the bike racks are getting more crowded and I suspect parking will be an issue over the summer months. I keep meaning to ask security if they will let me know when they finally get around to removing them as one of the hybrids (a Carrera Subway) seems to get good reviews for what I would otherwise have assumed was a BSO - a hybrid would be handy to fix a child seat on for transporting the toddler to school when he starts next year.

always_tyred

You misunderstand. Those aren't abandoned bikes. They are bike stand extenders. Topeak make them as well.

the_hundredth_idiot

Not convinced about the criminal damage argument. The car park will be private property and so the owner of the car park will be entitled to use reasonable steps to remove items abandoned on that property. If someone abandoned a (locked) bike in your front garden, would you hesitate in getting out the car jack/hacksaw/bolt croppers or whatever and removing it?

Even if the bike owner did reappear and complain, we're talking about cheap, knackered bikes (and locks) not expensive bikes. Nobody will kick up much of a fuss for a cheap old bike that they clearly didn't want anyway. Even if they did (and had a leg to stand on), you could give them the value of the bike and lock (£20, say) to go away.

simple_salmon

I put a notice on ours giving one month's notice and then give them to a bike recycling charity. I've never had to cut a lock off though so cannot advise on the legality of that.

Occasionally I do forget that I've put a notice on so I hope the one mentioned above by The 100th idiot insn't one of mine :oops:

I keep a record of all bikes that go to the recycling charity on the off chance that someone wants to make a claim against us.

always_tyred

At what point does it effectively become the equivalent of fly tipping or littering? Where are the lawyers when you need them.

Furbes

Even on private property , the law states that you must give reasonable notice of your intentions to remove said obstruction , failure to do so will leave you open to a charge of criminal damage of the lock (& the bike , if destroyed or damaged during removal) .

That's from two different Garda (police) stations - my boss checked the legality before he done it . I don't know what the legalities are across the water though .

biondino

My colleague bought a new bike, locked it in the communal bike shed shared by her block of flats, and when she came back found it had been thrown away by an overenthusiastic neighbour who was trying to solve the same problem! It's one thing to chuck a dusty, rusty old crock but an obviously brand new bike?

spen666

beverick wrote:

We have a problem with 'abandoned' bikes in the cycle area at work.

There are 20 cycle stands giving 40 places (which sounds good until you know that there are 5000 staff on site). However, at the last count there were 17 bikes that appear to have been abandoned by their owners. I know for a fact that the owner of one of them left at christmas.

The building manager says he can't do anything to stop it happening as staff have a right to leave their bikes as long as they want (I occasionally leave mine for a couple of days if I'm travelling to our other offices between commutes). Also, if he cuts a security device and moves the bike device he's potentially committing criminal damage and theft.

As I assume this is a problem at other sites has anyone come across an effective or easy way of stopping this from happening or resolving the issue when it does?

Bob

I don't think a charge of criminal damage could be successfully brought as the offence is that you damaged property without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

here, if notice is given - ie say all bikes are tagged with warning that if not moved, the bikes will be removed by the company in say 21 days. Thereafter I would say this is a reasonable excuse for company to break lock - ie to remove apparently abandoned bikes.

company could also introduce terms and conditions for using bike rack that allow them to break locks on abandoned bikes after giving sufficient notice

dav1

i think its the same everywhere. The stand i use at work has serval abandond bike in it which have been there for months.

One of them is an old spech rockhopper, if they ever give warning of a cleanout i might try to aquire it in return for a charitable donation

beverick

spen666 wrote:

beverick wrote:

We have a problem with 'abandoned' bikes in the cycle area at work.

There are 20 cycle stands giving 40 places (which sounds good until you know that there are 5000 staff on site). However, at the last count there were 17 bikes that appear to have been abandoned by their owners. I know for a fact that the owner of one of them left at christmas.

The building manager says he can't do anything to stop it happening as staff have a right to leave their bikes as long as they want (I occasionally leave mine for a couple of days if I'm travelling to our other offices between commutes). Also, if he cuts a security device and moves the bike device he's potentially committing criminal damage and theft.

As I assume this is a problem at other sites has anyone come across an effective or easy way of stopping this from happening or resolving the issue when it does?

Bob

I don't think a charge of criminal damage could be successfully brought as the offence is that you damaged property without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

here, if notice is given - ie say all bikes are tagged with warning that if not moved, the bikes will be removed by the company in say 21 days. Thereafter I would say this is a reasonable excuse for company to break lock - ie to remove apparently abandoned bikes.

company could also introduce terms and conditions for using bike rack that allow them to break locks on abandoned bikes after giving sufficient notice

As a bit more background, the problem is that the building manager works for us and the bike racks are provided by the landlord in an area under his control. They are used by employees of at least six different companies.

Therefore, we have no authority to set a policy for use and the landlord's stance is that they provide the racks solely on a first come, first served basis.

Our legal counsel advised that in the absence of ownership there is neither lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Bob

gtvlusso

spen666 wrote:

beverick wrote:

We have a problem with 'abandoned' bikes in the cycle area at work.

There are 20 cycle stands giving 40 places (which sounds good until you know that there are 5000 staff on site). However, at the last count there were 17 bikes that appear to have been abandoned by their owners. I know for a fact that the owner of one of them left at christmas.

The building manager says he can't do anything to stop it happening as staff have a right to leave their bikes as long as they want (I occasionally leave mine for a couple of days if I'm travelling to our other offices between commutes). Also, if he cuts a security device and moves the bike device he's potentially committing criminal damage and theft.

As I assume this is a problem at other sites has anyone come across an effective or easy way of stopping this from happening or resolving the issue when it does?

Bob

I don't think a charge of criminal damage could be successfully brought as the offence is that you damaged property without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

here, if notice is given - ie say all bikes are tagged with warning that if not moved, the bikes will be removed by the company in say 21 days. Thereafter I would say this is a reasonable excuse for company to break lock - ie to remove apparently abandoned bikes.

company could also introduce terms and conditions for using bike rack that allow them to break locks on abandoned bikes after giving sufficient notice

Agree with the Spenmeister - If it is a term and condition of using the facility (I would like to see it at our place!). Even if you don't know it is a term or condition you are probably still bound by the fact that you use the bike shed.....and therefore the policy applies!

spen666

beverick wrote:

...



As a bit more background, the problem is that the building manager works for us and the bike racks are provided by the landlord in an area under his control. They are used by employees of at least six different companies.

Therefore, we have no authority to set a policy for use and the landlord's stance is that they provide the racks solely on a first come, first served basis.

Our legal counsel advised that in the absence of ownership there is neither lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Bob

Ahhhh - now you give more information.

It is only the landlord who can do as I said in my earlier post

simple_salmon

I'm in the middle of writing a cycle parking policy for work and this has all been very useful - thanks.

dilemna

Criminal Damage Act 1971

s.1 Destroying property or damaging property
s.1(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any pretty belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged is guilty of an offence.

s.5 "Without lawful excuse"
s.5(1) this section applies to any offence under s.1(1) above...

(2) a person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of the Act as having a lawful excuse part from this subsection, be treated for those purposed as having a lawful excuse -

(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and it's circumstances; or

(b) if he destroyed or damaged............the property in question......in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts or alleged to constitute the offence he believed:-

(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or
would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

(3) For the purpose of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if
it is honestly held.

(4) For the purpose of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property includes any
right or privilege on or over land, whether created by grant, license or otherwise.

OrbitRider

My work place is drafting a plan to remove abandoned bikes. The plan is that all bikes found in racks at the weekend will be tagged. The tags can easily be removed by the owner. One month later, any bikes still tagged will have a second (different colour) tag put on them. After another couple of weeks, the tagged bikes will be removed. Notices will obviously be given out to staff to tell them what is happening.
I believe this scheme is modelled on that used at Oxford railway station, so it could be used for areas open to the general public.

biondino

Orbitrider, they did something like that at my work, but i have no idea if they actually removed any bikes! Seems a decent move.

beverick

OrbitRider wrote:

My work place is drafting a plan to remove abandoned bikes. The plan is that all bikes found in racks at the weekend will be tagged. The tags can easily be removed by the owner. One month later, any bikes still tagged will have a second (different colour) tag put on them. After another couple of weeks, the tagged bikes will be removed. Notices will obviously be given out to staff to tell them what is happening.
I believe this scheme is modelled on that used at Oxford railway station, so it could be used for areas open to the general public.

I like the idea of a 'tagging' system but I can't work out how it would work on our 24 hour site.

I suggested we issued tags to be hung on/around the frame but the obvious issues are that a) people wouldn't use them, b) no-one would police them and c) they'd be shared and traded.

Assuming we could arrange for abandoned bikes to be removed by someone with suitable authority or cause, what could we do with them? Legal Counsel suggest that if the owner reported them as stolen whoever moved them would most likely be guilty of theft especially if they were disposed of without the owner's cosent.

So, is there an obligation to keep them indefinately?

Bob

spen666

dilemna wrote:

Criminal Damage Act 1971

s.1 Destroying property or damaging property
s.1(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any pretty belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged is guilty of an offence.

s.5 "Without lawful excuse"
s.5(1) this section applies to any offence under s.1(1) above...

(2) a person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of the Act as having a lawful excuse part from this subsection, be treated for those purposed as having a lawful excuse -

(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and it's circumstances; or

(b) if he destroyed or damaged............the property in question......in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts or alleged to constitute the offence he believed:-

(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or
would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

(3) For the purpose of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if
it is honestly held.

(4) For the purpose of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property includes any
right or privilege on or over land, whether created by grant, license or otherwise.

not sure why you have highlighted this

It simply means that if you have a right over property you have a lawful excuse to damage it. It is not relevant here


however - I think you need to look again at your source- read again S1(1). I think that is not what the act says. i'm sure it talks about property not pretty

spen666

beverick wrote:

OrbitRider wrote:

My work place is drafting a plan to remove abandoned bikes. The plan is that all bikes found in racks at the weekend will be tagged. The tags can easily be removed by the owner. One month later, any bikes still tagged will have a second (different colour) tag put on them. After another couple of weeks, the tagged bikes will be removed. Notices will obviously be given out to staff to tell them what is happening.
I believe this scheme is modelled on that used at Oxford railway station, so it could be used for areas open to the general public.

I like the idea of a 'tagging' system but I can't work out how it would work on our 24 hour site.

Can't see a problem.

Tag all bikes present say at 2am asOR said.
One month later check again and then 2 weeks later remove those bikes still with tags on.

Being a 24hour site shouldn't affect this. You are looking for bikes on 2nd & 3rd visits with tags on. These will be there 24/7 - if not then they are being used so are not the problem

I suggested we issued tags to be hung on/around the frame but the obvious issues are that a) people wouldn't use them, b) no-one would police them and c) they'd be shared and traded.

what about those like me who ride in on several different bikes ( not all at once!). Would you give me several tags. How secure are the tags? If someone steals my tag does that ban me from cycling in?

How do I remove tag when not at work?

Not sure this is an idea I would favour.

Assuming we could arrange for abandoned bikes to be removed by someone with suitable authority or cause, what could we do with them? Legal Counsel suggest that if the owner reported them as stolen whoever moved them would most likely be guilty of theft especially if they were disposed of without the owner's cosent.

So, is there an obligation to keep them indefinately?

Bob

No- theft is the DISHONEST appropration of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive that other of the property.

Here there is no dishonesty- so offence cannot be made out.

Also if you adopt a procedure like OR suggests - you have taken all steps to warn bike owners of the consequences. There is an implied licence to use bike racks only for purpose of locking bike whilst at work. There is no licence to leave bike there as a permanent/ semi permanent storage facility

prawny

Wouldn't the tag be fitted to the abandoned bike? Like a parking ticket affair?

Retch

At my place they occasionally have a locker and bike audit. At the start of a month they give you a flexipull plastic pull-tie thing with a number on to put round your frame. A month later any bikes in the facility without have been there more than a month so are removed.

Lockers are more tricky - they do an email saying "do you want yours still"? Obviously every git replies in the affirmative, and I (been here 9 months...) have to keep my kit in my office whilst certain colleagues leave space downstairs empty / full of crap.

chuckcork

Retch wrote:

At my place they occasionally have a locker and bike audit. At the start of a month they give you a flexipull plastic pull-tie thing with a number on to put round your frame. A month later any bikes in the facility without have been there more than a month so are removed.

Lockers are more tricky - they do an email saying "do you want yours still"? Obviously every git replies in the affirmative, and I (been here 9 months...) have to keep my kit in my office whilst certain colleagues leave space downstairs empty / full of crap.

Make them pay a peppercorn rent on it, say £2 a month.

Could also undertake an audit of spaces, those that aren't in use often enough get passed to those claiming greater need. Not simple and requires work but will sort out the timewasters...

snellgrove

Same problem here, but I think first come first serve and chain my bike up to a stand that's got a D-Lock or anything left on it - I don't care, serves them right.

I reserve the right to be really pissed off if my bike would ever get scratched by some sod reaching passed it to unlock his / her lock though

Annoying thing is, our bike shed has a rail running down each wall - specifically designed for you to hang your locks off, so you don't have to lock them to a bike stand / take it home each night. Great idea.... do most people use them?!! :roll: stoooopid.

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Criminal Damage Act 1971

s.1 Destroying property or damaging property
s.1(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any pretty belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged is guilty of an offence.

s.5 "Without lawful excuse"
s.5(1) this section applies to any offence under s.1(1) above...

(2) a person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of the Act as having a lawful excuse part from this subsection, be treated for those purposed as having a lawful excuse -

(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and it's circumstances; or

(b) if he destroyed or damaged............the property in question......in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts or alleged to constitute the offence he believed:-

(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or
would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

(3) For the purpose of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if
it is honestly held.

(4) For the purpose of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property includes any
right or privilege on or over land, whether created by grant, license or otherwise.

not sure why you have highlighted this

It simply means that if you have a right over property you have a lawful excuse to damage it. It is not relevant here

Presumably if the property was abandoned on your property and all attempt had been made to contact the owner following the cessation of any contracutal realtionship then you would have a right over it being on your premises. Can an object as opposed to a person commit trespass?

I highlighted it as previous posts were questioning the damage aspect if bikes were not abandoned but just hoggers. I did put something along the lines that you have written but then strangely chose not to post it. Certainly a system for notifying current users of the bike racks and all staff about that apparently abandoned bikes would be removed if not claimed within a reasonable time scale say 1 month. As you have said a notice placed on any bike whose ownership could not be established. Obviously it is a license to use the bike racks which would cease when an employee's employment ceased or when a contractor's contract ended. Any bikes belonging to such personnel that remained in the racks would be removed and disposed of as the company saw fit. For dismissed staff you would contact them to ask what they would wish you do with their bike if they have not had the opportunity to retrieve it. For other scenarios use common sense such as a deceased person contact their next of kin. It would be prudent to set up a bike rack number system if the racks are numerous and the demand for them great. Similar to many locker schemes or car parking bays allocate a rack to those staff who want to use them. You might record the make and model of bike as well although I don't think this would be necessary.

spen666 wrote:

however - I think you need to look again at your source- read again S1(1). I think that is not what the act says. i'm sure it talks about property not pretty

Ooops :oops: . I know it's awful that spell checker tis so carless.

spen666

dilemna wrote:

spen666 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Criminal Damage Act 1971

s.1 Destroying property or damaging property
s.1(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any pretty belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged is guilty of an offence.

s.5 "Without lawful excuse"
s.5(1) this section applies to any offence under s.1(1) above...

(2) a person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of the Act as having a lawful excuse part from this subsection, be treated for those purposed as having a lawful excuse -

(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and it's circumstances; or

(b) if he destroyed or damaged............the property in question......in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts or alleged to constitute the offence he believed:-

(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or
would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

(3) For the purpose of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if
it is honestly held.

(4) For the purpose of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property includes any
right or privilege on or over land, whether created by grant, license or otherwise.

not sure why you have highlighted this

It simply means that if you have a right over property you have a lawful excuse to damage it. It is not relevant here

Presumably if the property was abandoned on your property and all attempt had been made to contact the owner following the cessation of any contracutal realtionship then you would have a right over it being on your premises. Can an object as opposed to a person commit trespass?

I highlighted it as previous posts were questioning the damage aspect if bikes were not abandoned but just hoggers. I did put something along the lines that you have written but then strangely chose not to post it. Certainly a system for notifying current users of the bike racks and all staff about that apparently abandoned bikes would be removed if not claimed within a reasonable time scale say 1 month. As you have said a notice placed on any bike whose ownership could not be established. Obviously it is a license to use the bike racks which would cease when an employee's employment ceased or when a contractor's contract ended. Any bikes belonging to such personnel that remained in the racks would be removed and disposed of as the company saw fit. For dismissed staff you would contact them to ask what they would wish you do with their bike if they have not had the opportunity to retrieve it. For other scenarios use common sense such as a deceased person contact their next of kin. It would be prudent to set up a bike rack number system if the racks are numerous and the demand for them great. Similar to many locker schemes or car parking bays allocate a rack to those staff who want to use them. You might record the make and model of bike as well although I don't think this would be necessary.

spen666 wrote:

however - I think you need to look again at your source- read again S1(1). I think that is not what the act says. i'm sure it talks about property not pretty

Ooops :oops: . I know it's awful that spell checker tis so carless.

The section you highlighted is irrelevant to the debate. It is talking about something completely different - a little knowledge of the law ( or ability to cut n paste) is a dangerous thing.
You are confusing yourself

beverick

spen666 wrote:

beverick wrote:

OrbitRider wrote:

No- theft is the DISHONEST appropration of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive that other of the property.

Here there is no dishonesty- so offence cannot be made out.

The argument for the accusation of both criminal damage and theft is that in knowing that there is currently no policy for the use of the racks, and knowing that he does not have the authority to remove the bikes, there is a prima facie case that removing the security devices would be criminal damage and, if that were proven, the bikes would be seen to have been removed dishonestly. Basically, either there is a case for both criminal damage and theft or there is no case for either.

It was admitted that chances of the police investigating either offence was about as close to zero as you can get and even if they did the CPS wouldn't support a charge because there isn't a court in the land that would return a guilty verdict.

Bob