Chaining Bike to Railings

spen666

Reading a couple of posts on here and elsewhere about bike parking got me thinking.

If you chain your bike to railings say outside an office block or some such place, what legal right does the building owner or occupier have to cut the lock off your bike and remove the bike?


Criminal damage is defined as damaging property belonging to anothereither intentionally or recklessly without lawful authority or reasonable excuse

Now assuming the bike is not parked so as to obstruct access to the building or the street.

Can the owner of the building be said to have "reasonable excuse" to damage your property?

Those who say yes to this question, ask yourself this question. If someone parks their car across your driveway, do you have reasonable excuse to smash the car window to get into their car to release the handbrake and roll their car from across your drive?


I suspect the answer to the latter question in law is no, but I susoect the answer re the bike is yes-

double standards in the law?

lost_in_thought

Definitely not a legal person, but does it make a difference if there's a sign saying 'bikes left chained to these railings will be removed' or similar?

gabriel959

Of course.

In Spain is what is called a Vado that is a license that the government gives you (for an annual fee) so if anyone parks on your drive the council tow trucks will come and pick it up. The owner of the car will then need to pay 100 euros to get the car back.

spen666

lost_in_thought wrote:

Definitely not a legal person, but does it make a difference if there's a sign saying 'bikes left chained to these railings will be removed' or similar?

So if I put a sign on my drive saying cars parked here will be moved- that would justify the breaking of the car window to release the handbrake?

I don't know the answer here and am not aware without looking up of any decided cases

downwardslide

At the last place I worked, some random person parked infront of the shutters of the warehouse. The delivery guy who normally parked in front to load/unload simply hooked up a tow road and pulled it out of the way.
The drivers face when she returned to find her car sat in the middle of the estate was priceless.

tailwindhome

Hmmmm


Is there as comparison to be made with wheel clamping

You affix your clamp to my wheel and I damage it attempting to remove it, would I be liable for the damage.

The car across the driveway analogy may not be 100% similar as you don't own the road in front of your house.

tailwindhome

Has anyone got any Daily Mail links on this topic?

cjcp

Interesting point, Spen.

Abatement? Vaguely recall a rememdy of this kind from tort lectures, but no idea of the extent of the remedy.

However, if they unsecure your bike - because they've broken through your lock - does the occupier then have a duty to take reasonable care of your property i.e. the bike, by virtue of becoming a bailee of the bike? In which case, they'd surely not be able to leave it on the street, unsecured.

If the bike is on the pavement, are they obstructing the pedestrians?

lost_in_thought

What's a bailee?

lost_in_thought

spen666 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Definitely not a legal person, but does it make a difference if there's a sign saying 'bikes left chained to these railings will be removed' or similar?

So if I put a sign on my drive saying cars parked here will be moved- that would justify the breaking of the car window to release the handbrake?

I don't know the answer here and am not aware without looking up of any decided cases

Oooh I really don't know!

It might... or at least it would be less surprising!

biondino

Part of a medieval castle.

AidanR

lost_in_thought wrote:

What's a bailee?

chris_sw

I'm pretty sure if a car is parked in front of your driveway, blocking you in, you can call the police and they'll tow it away to the impound, but I don't think you have the rights to move it yourself, certainly not if moving it causes damage.

But with a bike chained to railings, in a location that doesn't obstruct anything I can't see them having any rights to remove it. Especially if the railing are on the street outside the building, rather than on their property.

_jon_

I think I remember hearing on a recent documentary about bikes that unless they have reasonable grounds to assume that the bike has been abandoned, they aren't allowed to remove it.

ride_whenever

it is something that i'm interested in, i've got a hefty lock that retails at 160 quid, i'd rather they didn't scuff it up in their attempts to remove it.

cjw

This from earlier this year;

A law that may have seen thousands of bikes removed unnecessarily from railings in London has been rejected by the House of Lords.

The bill would have allowed council contractors to remove without notice bikes chained to railings even if they weren’t an obstruction or abandoned.

Implies that no one can touch your bike if it hasen't been abandoned or causing an obstruction.

_Brun_

This topic got done on the other forum a while back. Can't remember what the conclusion was, and don't have time to read it back now.

I got a sticker warning me I'd locked my bike to private property when I left it locked to that awning thing at Spitalfields. Think it said it would be removed in future and a I'd have to pay a release fee.

spen666

_Brun_ wrote:

This topic got done on the other forum a while back. Can't remember what the conclusion was, and don't have time to read it back now.

I got a sticker warning me I'd locked my bike to private property when I left it locked to that awning thing at Spitalfields. Think it said it would be removed in future and a I'd have to pay a release fee.

The idea of a release fee equateswith the release fee for clamped cars.

That is I think legitimate if warning notices are posted as per car clamping.

however, to remove your bike they must have damaged your lock. It is that aspect that I am curious about

Clever Pun

_Brun_ wrote:

This topic got done on the other forum a while back. Can't remember what the conclusion was, and don't have time to read it back now.

I got a sticker warning me I'd locked my bike to private property when I left it locked to that awning thing at Spitalfields. Think it said it would be removed in future and a I'd have to pay a release fee.

I thought you'd be mentioning "This is London my friend"

lost_in_thought

Does it make a difference whether it's public or private property?

Reason I ask is that in London at least, a fair few property boundaries extend as far as to include the property's railings (or further), whereas some stop just short meaning the railings are part of the public highway, and therefore (presumably) under council jurisdiction...

cjcp

lost_in_thought wrote:

Does it make a difference whether it's public or private property?

Reason I ask is that in London at least, a fair few property boundaries extend as far as to include the property's railings (or further), whereas some stop just short meaning the railings are part of the public highway, and therefore (presumably) under council jurisdiction...

A private (trespass) and a public (obstruction) issue at the same time?

If the bike is attached to the railings, and it causes an obstruction, what's the difference between putting a bike on the pavement and your refuse on the pavement for collection? Bit OT that.

richk

Random question? Do car tow/clamp companies have a responsibility to not damage your vehicle if/when they tow it away?

Dont they usually just lift a car by it's wheels? Couldn't do that with a bike anchored to a railing.

cjcp

RichK wrote:

Random question? Do car tow/clamp companies have a responsibility to not damage your vehicle if/when they tow it away?

Dont they usually just lift a car by it's wheels? Couldn't do that with a bike anchored to a railing.

I would have thought so. They're taking custody of your vehicle and I would have thought be under some obligation as bailee to take reasonable care of your vehicle.

lost_in_thought

cjcp wrote:

RichK wrote:

Random question? Do car tow/clamp companies have a responsibility to not damage your vehicle if/when they tow it away?

Dont they usually just lift a car by it's wheels? Couldn't do that with a bike anchored to a railing.

I would have thought so. They're taking custody of your vehicle and I would have thought be under some obligation as bailee to take reasonable care of your vehicle.

So I suppose the same applies to your bike, and indeed your lock?

Could you (hypothetically) demand compensation for a new lock?

cjcp

lost_in_thought wrote:

cjcp wrote:

RichK wrote:

Random question? Do car tow/clamp companies have a responsibility to not damage your vehicle if/when they tow it away?

Dont they usually just lift a car by it's wheels? Couldn't do that with a bike anchored to a railing.

I would have thought so. They're taking custody of your vehicle and I would have thought be under some obligation as bailee to take reasonable care of your vehicle.

So I suppose the same applies to your bike, and indeed your lock?

Could you (hypothetically) demand compensation for a new lock?

But if you've assumed the risk of it being removed, you've arguably assumed the risk of the lock being broken. The bike would be different. If the Council are empowered to remove the bike, I would be surprised if the power entitles them to abandon the bike as opposed to taking it into their custody and putting a notice up saying it can be collected at X address.

lost_in_thought

cjcp wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

cjcp wrote:

RichK wrote:

Random question? Do car tow/clamp companies have a responsibility to not damage your vehicle if/when they tow it away?

Dont they usually just lift a car by it's wheels? Couldn't do that with a bike anchored to a railing.

I would have thought so. They're taking custody of your vehicle and I would have thought be under some obligation as bailee to take reasonable care of your vehicle.

So I suppose the same applies to your bike, and indeed your lock?

Could you (hypothetically) demand compensation for a new lock?

But if you've assumed the risk of it being removed, you've arguably assumed the risk of the lock being broken. The bike would be different. If the Council are empowered to remove the bike, I would be surprised if the power entitles them to abandon the bike as opposed to taking it into their custody and putting a notice up saying it can be collected at X address.

I guess it's a matter of whether they're genuinely entitled to remove your bike/break your lock in the first place, just by merit of putting up a sign.

cjcp

Logically, yes.

http://www.londonfgss.com/thread31698.html

Not read it yet, mind.

beverick

I remember commenting on something along the same lines during the summer.

I work on a shared site where the landlord is responsible for a shared cycle area although we are the majority user of the facility.

Our building manager mentioned to the landlord that a growing number of the stands were occupied permanently by cycles that had, to all intents and purposed, been abandoned by their owner. We asked if the landlord would 'deal' with the issue. He said he wouldn't but suggested that we do the honours ("....we would have no objection to [xxx] removing the offending bikes..." was in an e-mailed reply).

The building manager asked our legal counsel for advice which was that only the landlord and/or property owner or their contracted agent (ie someone operating on the direct authority of the landlord) could remove the bikes legally and then only assuming that users of the facility had been made aware of the usage (and hence removal) policy.

They stated that if our building manager removed a bike without the knowledge of the owner and in the absence of 'fair use' he (and interestingly not the company) could be guilty of a) criminal damage and b) theft of the bike.

Needless to say the abandoned bikes are still there.

Bob

lost_in_thought

cjcp wrote:

Logically, yes.

http://www.londonfgss.com/thread31698.html

Not read it yet, mind.

Raises more questions than it answers!

cjcp

lost_in_thought wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Logically, yes.

http://www.londonfgss.com/thread31698.html

Not read it yet, mind.

Raises more questions than it answers!

Cool. I don't need to read it now.

greg66_tri_v2.0

If the railings mark the boundary between the landowner's land and the public highway...

Well, I do sort of recall that if your neighbour's tree overhangs your garden, you can cut the overhanging branches off, as long as you chuck them back into his garden. IIRC (which is by no means certain) the branches are trespassing in your airspace, but once cut they remain the property of the owner of the tree.

So on that basis, the landowner could cut away those parts of the lock that are on his side of the railings, and balance them on your saddle.

Then you're left with a bike on the public highway, leaning against a boundary fence. Not sure whether or not the landowner could push the bike over, so it's not leaning on his fence.

Either way the bike's blocking the public footpath, and again IIRC (as to which, see above), it doesn't matter if you can walk around it; any blocking of a public right of way is unlawful. However, I think the ability to sue someone to remove a blockage is generally reserved to the local council, and not available to any old member of the public. So I think it would be for the council to then remove it, and not the landowner (who would in those circs be committing a tort were he to swipe it).

Most, if not all of that could be wrong.