request for legal opinion on the removal of a bicycle

DonDaddyD

I don't always (well publicly) see eye to eye with Spen, but I won't challenge his genuine intentions behind his law related posts. I think its a topic he is interested and knowledgeable in and generally posts (on these subjects) because he wants to help. Yes his delivery is abrupt, what lawyer pulls punches? All that said, we would lose something if he stopped giving advice and for that even I appreciate and value what he adds to the site.

I do think if doubted then what he posts should be questioned. But to his credit he has never shirked from such questions.

always_tyred

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes his delivery is abrupt, what lawyer pulls punches?

Well, if you have any kind of client facing role (where the client is paying for your services, or may potentially pay for your services) then it is helpful to have at least some tact.

Its hard to challenge the accuracy of something if you know little about the subject. Law is a little like medicine in that respect.

For example, Spen professes to know that judges in small claims court don't care who is representing each party. Judges are of course objective impartial calculating operatives of the law.

Except when they aren't.

I suggest that a guy on a course I went on last year advised otherwise A solicitor advocate, teaching the sourse) and, other than a slip in terminology, Spen didn't address the issue because it might entail entering into a debate (albeit vicariously) with someone else who knows some law, thus conveying a risk of being shown to be fallible.

The unadressed matter is far more important to the OP than whether or not I referred to a magistrate or a judge.

So, its very easy, if you are the only one who is supposed to know, to create a veneer of authority on a subject, without actually saying much - I do it all the time. As a client, its therefore very difficult to know if you've had bad advice, good advice or no advice.

All that said, I have come to find that staggering lack of manners white endearing. Its only an internet forum, after all!!

DonDaddyD

Always Tyred wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes his delivery is abrupt, what lawyer pulls punches?

Well, if you have any kind of client facing role (where the client is paying for your services, or may potentially pay for your services) then it is helpful to have at least some tact.

I'm sorry but being honest and straight to the point and being tactful are two different things.

Its hard to challenge the accuracy of something if you know little about the subject. Law is a little like medicine in that respect.

For example, Spen professes to know that judges in small claims court don't care who is representing each party. Judges are of course objective impartial calculating operatives of the law.

Except when they aren't.

Which is why I said:

Dondaddyd wrote:

I do think if doubted then what he posts should be questioned.

AT wrote:

So, its very easy, if you are the only one who is supposed to know, to create a veneer of authority on a subject, without actually saying much - I do it all the time. As a client, its therefore very difficult to know if you've had bad advice, good advice or no advice.

All that said, I have come to find that staggering lack of manners white endearing. Its only an internet forum, after all!!

AT, I never said Spen was always right. I did say that if doubted what he says should be challenged. And when challenged he often comes back to explain his point.

I also said that he has genuine intentions when trying to help. I never mentioned the accuracy of information he provides.

He may be abrupt with his delivery, but to your own admission its the internet, he isn't getting paid for his time so you could argue that we aren't clients, we aren't paying for his time so he doesn't have to care (overly) about our feelings.

Are you agreeing with me in that Lawyer way, that makes it seem like I'm wrong your right even though your saying exactly the same thing I'm saying but with a different spin. Mrs DDD tries to do that as well... doesn't always work.

always_tyred

DonDaddyD wrote:

Are you agreeing with me in that Lawyer way, that makes it seem like I'm wrong your right even though your saying exactly the same thing I'm saying but with a different spin. Mrs DDD tries to do that as well... doesn't always work.

Priceless.

It could be worse, DDD, you could be dating a psychiatrist.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

...

For example, Spen professes to know that judges in small claims court don't care who is representing each party. Judges are of course objective impartial calculating operatives of the law.

Except when they aren't.

I suggest that a guy on a course I went on last year advised otherwise A solicitor advocate, teaching the sourse) and, other than a slip in terminology, Spen didn't address the issue because it might entail entering into a debate (albeit vicariously) with someone else who knows some law, thus conveying a risk of being shown to be fallible.

I deliberately did not engage in a debate with you on that point because:
a) its a matter of conjecture- not fact
b) you are repeatinf hearsay - ie the opinion of someone else- so its not fact or even within your knowledge - its the opinion of someone else you are repeating and trying to debate it is pointless as you have no knowledge of the issue and the person with knowledge is not present to debate

The unadressed matter is far more important to the OP than whether or not I referred to a magistrate or a judge.

So, its very easy, if you are the only one who is supposed to know, to create a veneer of authority on a subject, without actually saying much - I do it all the time. As a client, its therefore very difficult to know if you've had bad advice, good advice or no advice.

All that said, I have come to find that staggering lack of manners white endearing. Its only an internet forum, after all!!

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

...

For example, Spen professes to know that judges in small claims court don't care who is representing each party. Judges are of course objective impartial calculating operatives of the law.

Except when they aren't.

I suggest that a guy on a course I went on last year advised otherwise A solicitor advocate, teaching the sourse) and, other than a slip in terminology, Spen didn't address the issue because it might entail entering into a debate (albeit vicariously) with someone else who knows some law, thus conveying a risk of being shown to be fallible.

I deliberately did not engage in a debate with you on that point because:
a) its a matter of conjecture- not fact
b) you are repeatinf hearsay - ie the opinion of someone else- so its not fact or even within your knowledge - its the opinion of someone else you are repeating and trying to debate it is pointless as you have no knowledge of the issue and the person with knowledge is not present to debate

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conjecture
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opinion

No, its opinion. It may, however, be based on empirical observation (conjecture).

It wouldn't be fact no matter who said it.

Was it hearsay? I said, "I heard A say B" (what I said being fact, B being opinion). I didn't say, "A said B" (hearsay - to my completely uninformed understanding anyway).

All this from the guy who said you can't patent an idea. :roll:

PBo

Always Tyred wrote:

All this from the guy who said you can't patent an idea. :roll:

I'm not an apologist for spen at all - just look back at my comments on this thread - but I'm pretty sure this is true...
from http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis.htm

Your invention must:

be new
have an inventive step that is not obvious to someone with knowledge and experience in the subject
be capable of being made or used in some kind of industry
not be:

a scientific or mathematical discovery, theory or method

a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work

a way of performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business

the presentation of information, or some computer programs

an animal or plant variety

a method of medical treatment or diagnosis

against public policy or morality.

So, ideas in the abstract form cannot be patented......

Edit: just saw this on patent office home page

Fast Facts
Ideas and concepts for inventions are not patentable

merkin

All well and good, but can the girl have her bike back? :?

tailwindhome

Girl?
Bike?

What are you on about?

always_tyred

PBo wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

All this from the guy who said you can't patent an idea. :roll:

I'm not an apologist for spen at all - just look back at my comments on this thread - but I'm pretty sure this is true...
from http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis.htm

Your invention must:

be new
have an inventive step that is not obvious to someone with knowledge and experience in the subject
be capable of being made or used in some kind of industry
not be:

a scientific or mathematical discovery, theory or method

a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work

a way of performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business

the presentation of information, or some computer programs

an animal or plant variety

a method of medical treatment or diagnosis

against public policy or morality.

So, ideas in the abstract form cannot be patented......

Edit: just saw this on patent office home page

Fast Facts
Ideas and concepts for inventions are not patentable

Nope - wrong I'm afraid. Where does the word "idea" appear in the patents act? It doesn't.

The second you paraphrase the law, the second you change the meaning. Slightly changing the meaning of the law in order to poorly advise private applicants is something that UKIPO have refined to an art form.

If UKIPO paraphrase the law in such a way as to contend that it says, "you cannot patent an idea" then they are simply incorrect. If I only wrote patents for inventions which were made, or finished, I'd be out of work.

If I have an idea of.... thinks of something from Dragon's Den.... a way of pulling electrical cables through holes in walls... I don't have to make a flexible rod with a magnet in it in order to get a patent for one, providing that I can provide something in writing which would enable a skilled person to make one.

So, to my mind, that is to patent an idea.

However, you do have to provide that enabling disclosure, so if your "idea" is a magic carpet, you will be hard pressed to obtain a patent for it, because you will find it difficult to persuade a patent examimer that you have provided an enabling disclosure. However if you want to try, give me a call.

Similarly, you cannot patent the result to be achieved. By this I mean, for example, "a mediciament for curing cancer", or "an infinitely stiff, yet comfortable, bicycle frame made out of special carbon fibre".

Therefore, if your idea is merely an aspiration, you can't patent it.

However, you most certainly can have a eureka moment, write it down, and apply for a patent.

Furthermore, even for inventions which have been thoroughly exemplified, the patent will cover variants, and the claims of the patent will encompass things which do not actually exist. If you take the advice from UKIPO, you'd get a patent with a claim for precisely what you have made and little more. The whole weight of patent case law surrounds the notion that patents provide applicants with a fair scope of protection against someone looking at a particular example embodiment and making inconsequential variants so as to obtain the same technical benefit.

It is ALL about protecting ideas.

UKIPO publications depress me.

dilemna

The managing agent did not own the bike(s) so did not have legal title to sell or otherwise dispose of them. They should have at least retained them for a period of time to establish contact with their owners and return the bike(s) to them. They did not do this. They disposed of them immediately, hardly reasonable or proportionate. The owner of the bike(s) will have an action against the managing agent in the tort of conversion. I would have thought any district judge, registrar or who ever sitting in judgement would find for the claimant. If the managing agents settle right at the last minute then the claimant is entitled to be re-imbursed for the value of her bike, all accessories including the lock which was cut, court fee and any other out of pocket expenses. If the agent decides to contest it in court and then loses, she can claim a daily/weekly rate for loss of use having been deprived of her bike, additional travel costs she would not have had had her bike not be taken by the managing agent and travel costs on the day and interest. As Spen says the claimant needs to submit a detailed chronology of events and contact with the managing agent and any other relevant testimonials. It would be handy to provide correspondence that shows her attempts to settle the matter. Also she should take pics of any signs in the vicinity, indicating size and visibility for the court. Costs for representation of up to £260 can be claimed and loss of earnings up to £50 per day plus travel expenses, but I don't think it will get that far as the managing agent may well settle at the last minute.

Aapje

I agree with dilemna, who gives very good advice. Also, I would advise the following:
- Write down the facts and arguments you want to mention, so on the stand, you won't forget anything.
- Be to the point. Small claims court is about speed, so don't waste time by making elaborate arguments. Try to mostly stick to the facts.
- Be sure to make the point that a third party could have removed the signs from your bike (on purpose or inadvertently). So even if the managing agent didn't make a mistake by removing a marked bike, they cannot reasonably assume that unmarked bikes are abandoned, so they should give people a chance to recover their removed bike.
- Mention the previous non-enforcement. Harsh actions after previous leniency is often unreasonable.
- If you can prove that you spend money on travel expenses, bring the proof.
- Also, there is a good chance that the managing agent will try to settle for a low figure. Carefully consider in advance what the minimum is what you will accept. Stick to this minimum! You have a strong case.

davmaggs

An update on this in case in comes up for someone else.

The preliminary review at the court didn't accept the defences claim that they weren't contractually liable for removing the bike as they are only the managing agents for the building and not the freeholders, so they have been strongly advised to settle.

There's enough of a case for us to now go to court, and the defence seemed disappointed.

The law mentioned was the interference of goods act 1977.

I will update if/when it gets to court

kelsen

davmaggs wrote:

An update on this in case in comes up for someone else.

The preliminary review at the court didn't accept the defences claim that they weren't contractually liable for removing the bike as they are only the managing agents for the building and not the freeholders, so they have been strongly advised to settle.

There's enough of a case for us to now go to court, and the defence seemed disappointed.

The law mentioned was the interference of goods act 1977.

I will update if/when it gets to court

That's great news! Keep us posted.

dancook

davmaggs wrote:

An update on this in case in comes up for someone else.

The preliminary review at the court didn't accept the defences claim that they weren't contractually liable for removing the bike as they are only the managing agents for the building and not the freeholders, so they have been strongly advised to settle.

There's enough of a case for us to now go to court, and the defence seemed disappointed.

The law mentioned was the interference of goods act 1977.

I will update if/when it gets to court

I've only just joined the thread, and I'm beaming ! excellent news.

tbh when i saw the thread title, I thought someone was petitioning for the removal of bicycles from the uk roads...

davmaggs

An update many many months later.

We just received an offer (court case is tomorrow) to settle the case. Apart from posting this up to celebrate I thought it might be of inspiration to others.

It seems on something like this my layman tips are:

- keep a really good log or all correspondance as a case can go on (this is a year)
- Write paper letters where possible
- a really good log frightens companies as they aren't organised enough to know who said what their end.
- It is about evidence and not what actually happened. Focus on what you can prove or what is in all probably likely.
- You need a law/contract to be broken and for that specific party to be legally liable as you case will be thrown out. Sounds obvious, but who owns or runs a property can and will different and they will try to say that someone else is liable.
- Costs are small, but mount up so keep a good log of them

lost_in_thought

Fantastic news! Well done!

I presume the offer is enough?

davmaggs

It wasn't quite the amount originally sought (which was purely for bike related items, and not for travel etc) as costs mounted up to £90.

However all in all it was a good result and to push for that little extra would have been pointless. Amazing that the firm in question was too stupid to sort this out a long time ago

OldSkoolKona

Excellent news and good to post for future ref.

Enjoy the feeling of legal victory :-)

rjsterry

Damn that was quick - having to chase this thread around the forum. And I see LiT has got there before me. Well done for sticking it out.

Chewy Cheeks

Good to hear a positive result.

What a waste of time and money by the defence - sheesh.

There was also a debate, what's not to like about that?