Lock's been removed

sazzaa

markhewitt1978 wrote:

sazzaa wrote:

I'm not so sure? If a house had a railing round the garden and someone stuck a lock on there, then surely the homeowner has a right to remove it? As it's on their property?

Hmm, it's not the same is it? If someone put a bike lock on the fence outside your house then perhaps, but we are not talking about that, we are talking about bike stands, specifically there for the purpose of parking bicycles.

I thought the OP locked it to railings? Not a bike stand?

slowbike

MOARspeed wrote:

sazzaa wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Mr.Duck wrote:

Imagine if someone attached something to the side of your house. When it is attached to your property, it becomes your property too and you can have it removed and destroyed legally. I'm pretty sure that's how it works with buildings anyway.

Stupid analogy. No, the property does not become yours as you are NOT the legal owner. If you think you do then you have committed the tort of conversion under civil law.

I'm not so sure? If a house had a railing round the garden and someone stuck a lock on there, then surely the homeowner has a right to remove it? As it's on their property?

Removing something is not the same as damaging something.
You could cut it off, but you'd have to give sufficient notice that you intended to do so OR put a sign up saying "any locks left here will be forcefully removed".

Just going back to the OP ...

thistle (MBNW) wrote:

Just started work today at a new office.

I rode down yesterday and dropped my lock off to save carrying it in today and locked it to the railings as I couldn't get into the bike parking.

So - it's a new job - he hadn't started at the time he left the lock there - so perhaps the co did have a notice sent round internally saying no locks to be left ... not even on the railings ... He wouldn't know about that (having not started) ...
So the co removed the lock left in the wrong place ...

asprilla

sazzaa wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

sazzaa wrote:

I'm not so sure? If a house had a railing round the garden and someone stuck a lock on there, then surely the homeowner has a right to remove it? As it's on their property?

Hmm, it's not the same is it? If someone put a bike lock on the fence outside your house then perhaps, but we are not talking about that, we are talking about bike stands, specifically there for the purpose of parking bicycles.

I thought the OP locked it to railings? Not a bike stand?

Doesn't matter.

You could remove it without damaging it and retain it giving the owner sufficient opportunity to collect it or you take reasonable steps to inform the owner that if it is not removed within a reasonable period of time then it will be removed (which may result in it's destruction). Having waited a reasonable time for the owner to reclaim it you can then dispose of it.

If you provide no warning, remove it and the owner can't get it back then that's theft.

If you provide no warning and you damage it when removing it then that's criminal damage.

There will be exceptions to this, such as attaching the lock to an emergency exit, but generally it holds true.

sazzaa

Asprilla wrote:

Doesn't matter.

Kind of does, if the OP chained it to railings and those railings belong to someone then I'd say they've probably got a right to remove them! A bike stand is different!

I have no issue with people chaining their bikes up wherever, but I certainly wouldn't be chaining mine up on railings as I'd fully expect the owner to have a shitfit about it. It would be like me parking my car in someone else's driveway.

asprilla

sazzaa wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Doesn't matter.

Kind of does, if the OP chained it to railings and those railings belong to someone then I'd say they've probably got a right to remove them! A bike stand is different!

I have no issue with people chaining their bikes up wherever, but I certainly wouldn't be chaining mine up on railings as I'd fully expect the owner to have a shitfit about it. It would be like me parking my car in someone else's driveway.

No it's not. There is a reason why railings in London have big signs advising that any bikes locked to them will be removed. It means that people are forewarned and therefore have no recourse.

As I said, you can remove it but you must hold onto it for a reasonable time so the owner can retrieve it. If you have to damage it to remove it then you must take reasonable steps to inform the owner that this will happen. It might not be what you want it to be and you might not think it fair, but it is what it is.

Incidentally, you are allowed to park blocking someone's drive provided you are not stopping them from getting their car to the road. If their car isn't there then feel free, you can block their access back onto their property.

sazzaa

Scottish law might be different. No idea. It's just not the done thing here.

markhewitt1978

Asprilla wrote:

Incidentally, you are allowed to park blocking someone's drive provided you are not stopping them from getting their car to the road. If their car isn't there then feel free, you can block their access back onto their property.

Isn't there a specific offence of parking next to a dropped curb?

moarspeed

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Incidentally, you are allowed to park blocking someone's drive provided you are not stopping them from getting their car to the road. If their car isn't there then feel free, you can block their access back onto their property.

Isn't there a specific offence of parking next to a dropped curb?

I don't think there is any offence for this, dropped kerbs themselves are fairly meaningless.
Legally you cannot prevent someone exiting their driveway and a dropped kerb denotes a driveway. The Police can remove vehicles that are blocking IN a vehicle. BUT If someone parks on their own frontage without a dropped kerb and someone parks there blocking them, then they're pretty much stuffed.

sazzaa

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Incidentally, you are allowed to park blocking someone's drive provided you are not stopping them from getting their car to the road. If their car isn't there then feel free, you can block their access back onto their property.

Isn't there a specific offence of parking next to a dropped curb?

Only in London, from what I can gather!

dilemna

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Incidentally, you are allowed to park blocking someone's drive provided you are not stopping them from getting their car to the road. If their car isn't there then feel free, you can block their access back onto their property.

Isn't there a specific offence of parking next to a dropped curb?

No need to talk like that about your better half !

asprilla

sazzaa wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Incidentally, you are allowed to park blocking someone's drive provided you are not stopping them from getting their car to the road. If their car isn't there then feel free, you can block their access back onto their property.

Isn't there a specific offence of parking next to a dropped curb?

Only in London, from what I can gather!

It need to be in a Special Enforcement Area, so it's almost like a by-law.

squired

MOARspeed wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Incidentally, you are allowed to park blocking someone's drive provided you are not stopping them from getting their car to the road. If their car isn't there then feel free, you can block their access back onto their property.

Isn't there a specific offence of parking next to a dropped curb?

I don't think there is any offence for this, dropped kerbs themselves are fairly meaningless.
Legally you cannot prevent someone exiting their driveway and a dropped kerb denotes a driveway. The Police can remove vehicles that are blocking IN a vehicle. BUT If someone parks on their own frontage without a dropped kerb and someone parks there blocking them, then they're pretty much stuffed.

Rules over dropped kerbs are set by local councils I believe. In the case of my council, they will give a parking ticket at the request of the home owner if any of the car is over the dropped kerb. We have a very small section of normal kerb between the dropped kerb for our drive and that of our neighbour. It is about 50cm wide at most. Every so often someone parks there and then decides it is their new spot (hard to find parking spaces in our road). Typically they get one hand written warning note. If they ignore that we contact the council, who send one of their people to issue a parking ticket.

Mr.Duck

dilemna wrote:

Stupid analogy. No, the property does not become yours as you are NOT the legal owner.

How is it stupid? Remember street artist called Bagsy? His art can be quite valuable. The art becomes property of the owner of the wall or whatever it is painted on. The people on BBC news said that according to the law, if you attach something to someone else's private property, that something belongs to the owner the the private property.

rolf_f

Mr.Duck wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Stupid analogy. No, the property does not become yours as you are NOT the legal owner.

How is it stupid? Remember street artist called Bagsy? His art can be quite valuable. The art becomes property of the owner of the wall or whatever it is painted on. The people on BBC news said that according to the law, if you attach something to someone else's private property, that something belongs to the owner the the private property.

So do you think that if someone parks on your property, you now own their car? Painting something on to a building is not the same thing as attaching something temporarily to it. And who on the BBC news made that comment? Someone who knows what they are talking about or a reporter (who doesn't)? Reporters really are totally useless!

moarspeed

Rolf F wrote:

Mr.Duck wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Stupid analogy. No, the property does not become yours as you are NOT the legal owner.

How is it stupid? Remember street artist called Bagsy? His art can be quite valuable. The art becomes property of the owner of the wall or whatever it is painted on. The people on BBC news said that according to the law, if you attach something to someone else's private property, that something belongs to the owner the the private property.

So do you think that if someone parks on your property, you now own their car? Painting something on to a building is not the same thing as attaching something temporarily to it. And who on the BBC news made that comment? Someone who knows what they are talking about or a reporter (who doesn't)? Reporters really are totally useless!

100%, I had to make a complaint to the BBC because one of their reporters, when reporting on the Gold phone boxes during 2012, said that an "engineer" had been sent out to repaint one of them.

[rant]
An ENGINEER!!!
Like you'd send Isambard Brunel or Nikola Tesla to go paint an F'in postbox!!!

Engineers don't paint postboxes, fit windows, install sky dishes, repair washing machines or spend all day changing tyres in a tyre/exhaust centre!
BBC and the media in general should be lined up and shot for degrading honourable and highly skilled professions, to the point where the general public think they're worth less than some dumb bimbo that sits in an office, sharpens the bosses pencil all day and believes themselves to be of a higher class (and probably tweets about running over cyclists).
[/rant]

Don't even get me started on the poor grammar and spelling mistakes that come out of that BBC news room.
Everything they say has to be taken with a bucket load of salt.

Mr.Duck

Rolf F wrote:

So do you think that if someone parks on your property, you now own their car?

I said attached. Meaning fixed to.

I also said earlier that this is for buildings. Since the thread mentioned railings in the original post, I thought it may be relevant.

patrickf

Mr.Duck wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

So do you think that if someone parks on your property, you now own their car?

I said attached. Meaning fixed to.

I also said earlier that this is for buildings. Since the thread mentioned railings in the original post, I thought it may be relevant.

Sorry, Rolf has a point. Do you think the outcome would have been different if the lock had been placed on the ground on private property? OK, it wouldn't have had to be broken, but it would have still been removed without warning.

Simply substitute car with lock and the same principle holds. A car is much more difficult to move though.

Mr.Duck

patrickf wrote:

Simply substitute car with lock and the same principle holds. A car is much more difficult to move though.

What? How do you equate a parked car with object attached to a building??

t4tomo

MOARspeed wrote:

[
100%, I had to make a complaint to the BBC because one of their reporters, when reporting on the Gold phone boxes during 2012, said that an "engineer" had been sent out to repaint one of them.

[rant]

Don't even get me started on the poor grammar and spelling mistakes that come out of that BBC news room.
Everything they say has to be taken with a bucket load of salt.

I think you'll find you CHOSE to to make a complaint rather than HAD to.

patrickf

Mr.Duck wrote:

patrickf wrote:

Simply substitute car with lock and the same principle holds. A car is much more difficult to move though.

What? How do you equate a parked car with object attached to a building??

Exactly. My point was on the "it's on property x, therefore it's owned by person owning property x".

Now, nobody would think that's the case with a car, so why are people making that jump to other objects?

Lets take some concrete examples:

• I have personal belongings on my desk at work
• I have my car parked at work (on some days)
• I have a lock attached to the bike rack when the bike isn't there
• I have my bike locked to the bike rack when I commute on the bike

Which of these items are owned by my employer (the entity that owns the property that these items are on/attached to)?

slowbike

patrickf wrote:

Which of these items are owned by my employer (the entity that owns the property that these items are on/attached to)?

None - but which does the employer have the right to move/remove without notice?

asprilla

Slowbike wrote:

patrickf wrote:

Which of these items are owned by my employer (the entity that owns the property that these items are on/attached to)?

None - but which does the employer have the right to move/remove without notice?

All of them, provided they do no damage to the items, store them securely and notify you of their removal thus allowing you to collect them.

markhewitt1978

Asprilla wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

patrickf wrote:

Which of these items are owned by my employer (the entity that owns the property that these items are on/attached to)?

None - but which does the employer have the right to move/remove without notice?

All of them, provided they do no damage to the items, store them securely and notify you of their removal thus allowing you to collect them.

It seems none of those things were done in this case. They destroyed the item and then disposed of it.

patrickf

And that's the point I'm trying to make. Some people appeared to be OK with suggesting that the company was in the right because a) it was a lock and b) it was "attached", yet felt the rules were different for other types of personal belongings?

Mr.Duck

patrickf wrote:

And that's the point I'm trying to make. Some people appeared to be OK with suggesting that the company was in the right because a) it was a lock and b) it was "attached", yet felt the rules were different for other types of personal belongings?

I don't know the law, but I'm assuming it's not ok to destroy items with no notice or warning. With the car on private property, you can hire a private company to take the car away. For example when you park in someone's reserved space and your car gets towed.

If someone puts their washing machine on your front lawn and you remove it without warning, do they have a case for making you pay for a new washing machine?

asprilla

I don't think you can get a car removed from private property any more. I'll have to look into that when I've got more time. It is certainly illegal to clamp on private property, not sure about removal.

Edit; you can do it but you have to give 14 days motive and send a registered letter to the address of the registered keeper.

http://m.askthe.police.uk/content/Q441. ... ntid=17604

tonye_n

Slowbike wrote:

MOARspeed wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Btw - if someone left their lock, locked to my property then I'd have little issue in removing it - none whatsoever if it caused me inconvenience...

Not sure how a bike lock attached to a bike stand is going to cause an inconvenience??? I mean yes in a town centre or something it's a pain, but one put there for a specific business to use?

To me it's like someone is either being a jobsworth, or someone higher up (probably an Audiot) thinks people are rudely reserving spaces.

Anyway - when referring to "my property" I meant my home property ... nobody (except me) has any right to leave stuff there ... it will be removed. It's not theft as I wouldn't intend to permanently deprive the owner of it.

At the office -
One lock ... ok ... two locks ... er ok .... three locks starting to look a bit messy ... would not surprise me if a fastidious co decided that no locks should be left and will remove any "litter" accordingly ...
Again - it's not theft if they don't permanently deprive the owner of it - ie they can come and claim it - although I guess there might be a release fee?

The OP did not leave the lock in the Bike Rack though.....
He left the lock on the rails outside his office building, as the entrance to the Bike Racks were locked at the time.

Lots of private businesses e.g. wine bars, cafes etc have a big problem with people leaving bikes and locks attached to the rails (business property). Even if you work for the company, you should only leave your items where specifically authorized to do so. Otherwise you leave them at your own risk.

You can shout as much as you like, but you will not get ANY compensation for the removed locks.

tonye_n

Asprilla wrote:

sazzaa wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Doesn't matter.

Kind of does, if the OP chained it to railings and those railings belong to someone then I'd say they've probably got a right to remove them! A bike stand is different!

I have no issue with people chaining their bikes up wherever, but I certainly wouldn't be chaining mine up on railings as I'd fully expect the owner to have a shitfit about it. It would be like me parking my car in someone else's driveway.

No it's not. There is a reason why railings in London have big signs advising that any bikes locked to them will be removed. It means that people are forewarned and therefore have no recourse.

As I said, you can remove it but you must hold onto it for a reasonable time so the owner can retrieve it. If you have to damage it to remove it then you must take reasonable steps to inform the owner that this will happen. It might not be what you want it to be and you might not think it fair, but it is what it is.

Incidentally, you are allowed to park blocking someone's drive provided you are not stopping them from getting their car to the road. If their car isn't there then feel free, you can block their access back onto their property.

With this kind of attitude its no surprise that cyclists are becoming very unpopular indeed in most city centers.
:roll:

asprilla

What kind of attitude?

I'm just stating the law and I was being facetious with regards to blocking driveways as it would obviously be an abhorrently anti-social thing to do.

spen666

some very inaccurate statements of the legal positions in this thread.