Chaining Bike to Railings

biondino

I might commit a tort at the SCR Xmas party.

jonginge

biondino wrote:

I might commit a tart at the SCR Xmas party.

Do you not need 2 medical doctors for that?

cjcp

Greg66 wrote:

Most, if not all of that could be wrong.

spen666

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 was specifically asking re private companies as the council may have legal authority to remove bike

spen666

Greg66 wrote:

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.

I don't think this analogy is a fair one or that it is correct in law

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.

Kieran_Burns

beverick wrote:

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

Surely all he would do is: put up a sign stating the removal policy and then dump any bikes abandoned after a month or so

greg66_tri_v2.0

spen666 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

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.

I don't think this analogy is a fair one or that it is correct in law

I'm pretty certain having reflected on it that the tree point is correct (for a random and unauthoratative check, see here) although possibly nuisance-based rather than trespass based.

That aerial photography case, Bernstein v Skyviews, illustrates the principle of aerial trespass but identifies an overflying plane as being outside it. There have been cases in the last ten years about overhanging structures (eg extractor fans, gutters) amounting to airspace trespass. So I still think in principle the overhanging part of the lock is a trespass.

However, I take your point about the remedy. Abatement (kudos to cjcp) - the self help option - is available for nuisance, but nuisance is when something from A's land interferes with B's land - like tree branches. The lock isn't creating a legal nuisance. So perhaps the more limited injunction/damages remedies are what the landowner is stuck with.

Which is not much consolation when he's busted your lock and is holding your bike hostage...

colintrav

If anyone moves your bike without your express permission it is classed as Theft .. plain and simple ...



I've see many a person chain there bike outside to BUILDING ..

greg66_tri_v2.0

spen666 wrote:

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

...

Those who say yes to this question, ask yourself this question. If someone parks their car across your driveway,

Apples & oranges, surely?

Round our way we have residents' parking on street. If you have a dropped kerb, you can have a white line painted in the rezzies' bay across your drop kerb. This is to discourage anyone parking across your access. However, the council made it crystal clear when the bays were introduced that they would not tow anyone parking in this way, and nor would the police, so long as the parked car had a valid rezzie permit.

Ditto (I take it from that) a dropped kerb with no white line.

Can't see why the absence of a rezzie bay, and no yellow lines, would make any different either. So probably not a good idea to smash the window and move the car yourself, I'd say.

spen666

colintrav wrote:

If anyone moves your bike without your express permission it is classed as Theft .. plain and simple ...



I've see many a person chain there bike outside to BUILDING ..

No it isn't
theft is the DISHONEST REMOVAL OF GOODS OR PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER WITH THE INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY


You would struggle to prove:
Dishonesty
Intention to permanently deprive


The latter would possibly be proven if the person then disposed of the bike.

cjcp

spen666 wrote:

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 was specifically asking re private companies as the council may have legal authority to remove bike

Ahem, yeah, wandered OT there.

Rooting around a little, as G66 says, it looks as if an injunction would be the only way forward.

Alternatively, I suppose you could take the railings down and build a wall .

Presumably, the rider briefly commits a trespass too if his/her hand strays over the boundary when fitting the lock.

colintrav

spen666 wrote:

colintrav wrote:

If anyone moves your bike without your express permission it is classed as Theft .. plain and simple ...



I've see many a person chain there bike outside to BUILDING ..

No it isn't
theft is the DISHONEST REMOVAL OF GOODS OR PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER WITH THE INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY


You would struggle to prove:
Dishonesty
Intention to permanently deprive


The latter would possibly be proven if the person then disposed of the bike.

Well the company has to clearly state .. by having a notice that is clear and precise ..

In scotland it's rather different ...If you don't you can make full use of there fence ...

cjcp

I wonder if the bike itself could be a private nuisance and that you could abate the nuisance by breaking through the lock and removing the bike. Lots of problems with it, but if continues to occur and damage is caused to the railing, I wonder.

lost_in_thought

So, why do the council have the right to remove it? Because it's obstructing the footway?

cjcp

Presumably so, in which case, if you were a business, perhaps it's an idea to call the council and ask them to chop the lock.

Mr_Cellophane

Couple of Off Topic points raised which need to be corrected.

If you cut down branches of a tree overhanging your land, you are not allowed to just throw them back on to your neighbours property. You must collect them up and then offer them back to him. If he says he does not want them, then it is up to you to dispose of them.


If someone parks across your drive and blocks your car in, you can call the police to have it removed. On the other hand if someone parks across your drive while your are our, the police won't remove the offending car.

cjcp

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

If someone parks across your drive and blocks your car in, you can call the police to have it removed. On the other hand if someone parks across your drive while your are our, the police won't remove the offending car.

So you can be blocked out, but not blocked in? Is that based on some notion of false imprisonment?

lost_in_thought

cjcp wrote:

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

If someone parks across your drive and blocks your car in, you can call the police to have it removed. On the other hand if someone parks across your drive while your are our, the police won't remove the offending car.

So you can be blocked out, but not blocked in? Is that based on some notion of false imprisonment?

What if you put a sign up saying 'No Parking - 24hr access required - cars parked here will be removed'?

cjcp

lost_in_thought wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

If someone parks across your drive and blocks your car in, you can call the police to have it removed. On the other hand if someone parks across your drive while your are our, the police won't remove the offending car.

So you can be blocked out, but not blocked in? Is that based on some notion of false imprisonment?

What if you put a sign up saying 'No Parking - 24hr access required'?

Don't know.

OT, but, when I were a teenager and used to race dinghies with a mate, we pushed a BMW out of the way because it was parked in front of the boat shed and couldn't otherwise get the boats out. The chap and his wife came back and asked who had pushed his car back. My mate and I (who were rigging up the *only* boat on the sea front to do some repairs) said we had no idea. He drove off.

About an hour later - when the penny had finally dropped it seems - he came back and said we moved his car. "D'ya think?", we said. He got a bit narky and we explained that he was parked illegally (on double yellows) and in front of our boat shed. He said he'd complain to our club.

Pushing cars out of the way like this was standard practice back then. No-one had a clue whether it was legal or not.

MonkeyMonster

well in all honesty I shall be locking my bike to some railings later outside the Morpeth...

cjcp

MonkeyMonster wrote:

well in all honesty I shall be locking my bike to some railings later outside the Morpeth...

I suspect they consent to that. Or they don;t get your (substantial ) business!