request for legal opinion on the removal of a bicycle

davmaggs

I posted a few months ago, but the case is now going to the small claims court so I was hoping some of the legal members of the forum could express a view.

A colleague in my office had her bicycle removed (they cut the lock off) by the managing agents of the flats that she lived in and it was donated to charity the very same day. The agents claim that she failed to mark her bike with a tag that was being distributed so that they could identify abandoned bicycles for removal. However as she reminded her flatmate to mark up theirs it is highly unlikely that they she forgot to do her own. (that person is providing a statement)

Anyway she noticed the very same day that the bike was gone and reported it to the building manager that evening and asked for it back. The on site people fobbed her off and stalled, so she switched to ringing and emailing the agent's HQ to find out who the charity was as she was quite prepared to do the legwork to get it back (she even offered to accept another bike as she didn't want money), but they just ignored her and the bike was never recovered. The agents admit in their written defence that it happened to five other people, but they claim they all admitted to not marking their bikes (that appears to be heresay). During the fobbing off stage the on site reps even told her to report it to the Police as theft even though they were the ones who took it. We assume that as their wages come from the agent's that we can't rely on them for statements.

She is now going to the small claims court and the agents have submitted a written defence. She is only seeking the cost of a cheap bike, the lock and lights. Nothing for travel or anything else so it ionly amounts to £350, but the agents are fighting it.

The company is using legal representation, but she can't afford it for £350. The lawyers attempting to cast doubt on her story. Even suggesting that she never even owned a bike (boss at our firm is writing a statement to say they saw her commuting on it).

For our online lawyers. Do managing agents have the right to give away property without holding it for a while (google chucks out torts interference with goods act 1977) for people living in rented flats?

Are there any classic legal statutes that would cover this so she can get back her £350 (don't want to claim theft)?

always_tyred

As far as I'm aware, Magistrates intensely dislike people who rock up to small claims court with a lawyer. Racking up a big legal bill, in excess of the claim, is totally against the spirit of small claims court.

davmaggs

thanks AT. I'm aware that they can't claim costs, but I'm very conscious that a lay person can easily be undone when a point of law is used to absolve the agents from legal responsibility or by asking for receipts for a two year old bike of low value they can cast doubt.

My small bit of law training at Uni a long time often focused not on the story in question, but on whether the case was legal to bring or some other procedural point. Thus, cases get dropped even if the lay person hearing the tale thinks it is unfair.

I'm going to speak for my colleague (I'm a manager at the firm), and whilst I am wary of quoting law knowing that you then give grounds to become unstuck by not being a lawyer I am hoping that there are classic precedents that might just move them to settle as their legal fees are going to cost more than the claim.

Aidy

I was under the impression that fair notice had to be given prior to a bike's removal.

Back in uni days, at the start of the year, bikes were tagged with something along the lines of "this bicycle will be removed after a week if this tag isn't removed".

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

As far as I'm aware, Magistrates intensely dislike people who rock up to small claims court with a lawyer. Racking up a big legal bill, in excess of the claim, is totally against the spirit of small claims court.

I don't think magistrates give a sh*t who turns up at small claims cours and with what representation.

Magistrates sit in the Magistrates court- which is a criminal court, not a civil court.


Racking up a legal bill is irrelevant in small claims court as costs are not recoverable in any event

spen666

The Agents have no power to dispose of the goods. They were not their goods. IF they had retained bike for sufficent period, then they could treat the same as abandoned, but IMHO not on the facts you portray

Harry B

It won't be before a magistrate. It will be before a judge who will assess each case on the balance of probabilities. Its likely that he will find that she did have a bike. Based on the facts given I think he may also find for your friend.

I think you will find that it will be judged on the facts rather than esoteric legal points but just in case check what warning notices etc were up at the time and whether anything has changed since this incident. Given the amount of money involved I would have thought that the managing agents will probably settle at the last minute. If they do have a lawyer he is likely to be fairly junior and probably more nervious than your friend. The judge will expect more from him and will probably give your friend more leyway.

Good luck (sozzles for any typos but typing this in a hurry)

That'll be £350 please

tarquin_foxglove

Aidy wrote:

I was under the impression that fair notice had to be given prior to a bike's removal.

Arguably she was given fair notice, she knew about the system, warned the flatmate etc.

It will come down to the belief or not that she was adhering to the system and that the company's procedures weren't followed and the bike was still removed.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

As far as I'm aware, Magistrates intensely dislike people who rock up to small claims court with a lawyer. Racking up a big legal bill, in excess of the claim, is totally against the spirit of small claims court.

I don't think magistrates give a sh*t who turns up at small claims cours and with what representation.

Magistrates sit in the Magistrates court- which is a criminal court, not a civil court.


Racking up a legal bill is irrelevant in small claims court as costs are not recoverable in any event

Okay a judge then.

However, the last practicing solicitor advocate I spoke to assured me that it really p!sses the relevant people off if a small claim is handled by a lawyer. It smacks of bullying and/or an overly defensive/agressive position.

His advice was get a lawyer involved by all means, but represent yourself.

I have no direct experience, but it doesn't sound entirely unreasonable.

PBo

Sorry, slightly OT but I've got to ask....

Spen - why so spikey???

compare and contrast these 2 responses:

I don't think magistrates give a sh*t who turns up at small claims cours and with what representation.

Magistrates sit in the Magistrates court- which is a criminal court, not a civil court.

It won't be before a magistrate. It will be before a judge who will assess each case on the balance of probabilities

Both address the same inaccurate point - one in a friendly manner, which provides the correct information, one in a snarky way, which just belittles the incorrect post and doesn't actually provide the correct information.

get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?

davmaggs

We aren't disputing that signs were put up (although done many times and not enforced), but that a mistake was made.

As a side note what was really really annoying is that they wouldn't even give her the number of the charity so she could fix it, they just ignored her time and time again until the small claims court came in months later. A simple converstaion and it would have been fixed.


Spen; I'm thinking that rather than arguing who said or do what it would be better to say that they should have retained the property for X numbers of days. The agents own statement says that they disposed of the bikes straight away, and did not hold them. Also they agree that my colleague informed them within 24 hours of the mistake.

Do you think that this is a good line to go down? Are there any laws that would support the point that they should have retained the property for a while?

John B

It will be in front of a Registrar as I don't think that is sufficiently large a claim to be heard by a Judge. Don't be surprised if you receive a payment or offer a day or so before the hearing. I have had reason to sue managing agents twice, for damaging a car of mine and for return of a deposit and they were hard-nosed up until the last minute then coughed-up. Whilst you will have to pay only basic court costs, it will cost them a lot more to employ a brief on the day, more than the total of the claim I should think. You say the Police removed the bike? What was their role and under what circumstances can they act for others like this. They have their own procedures for disposing of bikes.

Wallace1492

John B wrote:

You say the Police removed the bike? What was their role and under what circumstances can they act for others like this. They have their own procedures for disposing of bikes.

The Police broke down the door, angle grinded all the locks and rode away on the bikes.... is that not what happened? Let me read again - "During the fobbing off stage the on site reps even told her to report it to the Police as theft even though they were the ones who took it. We assume that as their wages come from the agent's that we can't rely on them for statements."

Ahhhhh.... so the Police didn't take them after all!

davmaggs

I can confirm that the Police haven't gone into bike theft.

Although the agent'smay have gone through some kind of Police community charity or something like that.However that being said I think that in this case the end point is irrelvant, as it was the Agent who got the anglegrinders out.

spen666

PBo wrote:

Sorry, slightly OT but I've got to ask....

Spen - why so spikey???

compare and contrast these 2 responses:

I don't think magistrates give a sh*t who turns up at small claims cours and with what representation.

Magistrates sit in the Magistrates court- which is a criminal court, not a civil court.

It won't be before a magistrate. It will be before a judge who will assess each case on the balance of probabilities

Both address the same inaccurate point - one in a friendly manner, which provides the correct information, one in a snarky way, which just belittles the incorrect post and doesn't actually provide the correct information.

get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?

PBo - stop importing your feelings onto my post.

There was nothing spikey or unfriendly in what I posted.

If you don't like what i write- then ignore it.

spen666

davmaggs wrote:

....


Spen; I'm thinking that rather than arguing who said or do what it would be better to say that they should have retained the property for X numbers of days. The agents own statement says that they disposed of the bikes straight away, and did not hold them. Also they agree that my colleague informed them within 24 hours of the mistake.

Do you think that this is a good line to go down? Are there any laws that would support the point that they should have retained the property for a while?

I do think you should argue that line. I am not involved in civil law these days, so don't have relevant case law to hand.

If they do have power to remove bike, they certainly do not have right to dispose of it immediately I don't think.

The timeline of events will count against the managing agents- you should prepare a detailed chronology and provide copies to DJ and to the cother side at the hearing.

John B

Wallace1492 wrote:

The Police broke down the door, angle grinded all the locks and rode away on the bikes.... is that not what happened? Let me read again - "During the fobbing off stage the on site reps even told her to report it to the Police as theft even though they were the ones who took it. We assume that as their wages come from the agent's that we can't rely on them for statements."

Ahhhhh.... so the Police didn't take them after all!

Thanks for explaining that to me! I can relax a bit now, got quite irate after my initial reading.

Wallace1492

John B wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

The Police broke down the door, angle grinded all the locks and rode away on the bikes.... is that not what happened? Let me read again - "During the fobbing off stage the on site reps even told her to report it to the Police as theft even though they were the ones who took it. We assume that as their wages come from the agent's that we can't rely on them for statements."

Ahhhhh.... so the Police didn't take them after all!

Thanks for explaining that to me! I can relax a bit now, got quite irate after my initial reading.

Sorry - couldn't resist!!

PBo

spen666 wrote:

PBo wrote:

Sorry, slightly OT but I've got to ask....

Spen - why so spikey???

compare and contrast these 2 responses:

I don't think magistrates give a sh*t who turns up at small claims cours and with what representation.

Magistrates sit in the Magistrates court- which is a criminal court, not a civil court.

It won't be before a magistrate. It will be before a judge who will assess each case on the balance of probabilities

Both address the same inaccurate point - one in a friendly manner, which provides the correct information, one in a snarky way, which just belittles the incorrect post and doesn't actually provide the correct information.

get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?

PBo - stop importing your feelings onto my post.

There was nothing spikey or unfriendly in what I posted.

If you don't like what i write- then ignore it.

look,by and large, this is a friendly forum - i just interpreted your answer as a bit snarky. Maybe I was wrong - I was going to put it down to loss of subtlety via internet.

But today I find this, and realise that I'm not, by a long shot, the only person who interprets you the same way.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... sc&start=0

you are amongst friend, relax!!!

spen666

PBo wrote:

....

look,by and large, this is a friendly forum - i just interpreted your answer as a bit snarky. Maybe I was wrong - I was going to put it down to loss of subtlety via internet.

But today I find this, and realise that I'm not, by a long shot, the only person who interprets you the same way.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... sc&start=0

you are amongst friend, relax!!!

I make no apologies for stating correctly what the law is.

Harry B

spen666 wrote:

PBo wrote:

....

look,by and large, this is a friendly forum - i just interpreted your answer as a bit snarky. Maybe I was wrong - I was going to put it down to loss of subtlety via internet.

But today I find this, and realise that I'm not, by a long shot, the only person who interprets you the same way.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... sc&start=0

you are amongst friend, relax!!!

I make no apologies for stating correctly what the law is.

So Spen what is your job in the law (or The Law as you seem to prefer)? Just curious like

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

Harry B wrote:

spen666 wrote:

PBo wrote:

....

look,by and large, this is a friendly forum - i just interpreted your answer as a bit snarky. Maybe I was wrong - I was going to put it down to loss of subtlety via internet.

But today I find this, and realise that I'm not, by a long shot, the only person who interprets you the same way.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... sc&start=0

you are amongst friend, relax!!!

I make no apologies for stating correctly what the law is.

So Spen what is your job in the law (or The Law as you seem to prefer)? Just curious like

:shock:

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

You said you'd not reveal my identity

spen666

Harry B wrote:

.....



So Spen what is your job in the law (or The Law as you seem to prefer)? Just curious like

I'm a Solicitor and also a Chartered Accountant

Wallace1492

I will defend Spen here. I think he does have great attention to detail, which is what counts in points of law and in a legal environment. Most of us mere mortals do not have enough attention to detail and often quote inaccurately or without getting the facts straight. Spen virtually always gets the detail correct.

Can agree or not with personal views and opinions, but he has superb accuracy in factual points.

tailwindhome

Wallace1492 wrote:

I will defend Spen here. I think he does have great attention to detail, which is what counts in points of law and in a legal environment. Most of us mere mortals do not have enough attention to detail and often quote inaccurately or without getting the facts straight. Spen virtually always gets the detail correct.

Can agree or not with personal views and opinions, but he has superb accuracy in factual points.

How do you, 'as a mere mortal' know he gets the detail correct?

Because Spen says so?

Wallace1492

Because he does deal with the detail. Most people don't. Maybe it's a pile of crap, but on looking into a lot of what is said, he does get it right, so I am going on past experience. Do you have evidence that it is not correct?

CiB

I'll stand up for Spen. I'd rather hear his opinion that's grounded in working in the industry over some of the occasionally baseless opinions that pass as fact that appear from time to time.

Wallace1492

CiB wrote:

I'll stand up for Spen. I'd rather hear his opinion that's grounded in working in the industry over some of the occasionally baseless opinions that pass as fact that appear from time to time.

+1 Good on you CiB, now just add 1,000 miles to my SCR Stats page.......

CiB

Wallace1492 wrote:

CiB wrote:

I'll stand up for Spen. I'd rather hear his opinion that's grounded in working in the industry over some of the occasionally baseless opinions that pass as fact that appear from time to time.

+1 Good on you CiB, now just add 1,000 miles to my SCR Stats page.......

I will, but then I'll have to kill you. It's in the rules see.

kelsen

CiB wrote:

I'll stand up for Spen. I'd rather hear his opinion that's grounded in working in the industry over some of the occasionally baseless opinions that pass as fact that appear from time to time.

Agreed. I've seen his posts from since the Cycling+ Forum days, and whilst he can come across as abrasive, he speaks his mind and the opinions he puts forward are based on facts IMHO.