Clamping bikes :O

joelsim

Mate of mine got his bike clamped today by 'morelondon'. Anyone know anything about this?

Kieran_Burns

More London Security

Address :
More London Riverside 2A, SE1 2DB London
Phone:
02074075819

Category:

REAL ESTATE (AGENTS)

They have no right to clamp anything. Cut it off or report them to the Police

Kieran_Burns

Hmmmm

Doing some more reading, was it where this happened?

http://www.spacehijackers.org/html/proj ... yhall.html

and some more:

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/56541

CitizenLee

So glad I live mile and miles away from London. I dunno who's worse, the cyclists or the anti-cyclists!

I do know one thing though, if anyone locked up my bike up then I'd simply cut the lock off with a Dremel.

diy

Kieran_Burns wrote:

They have no right to clamp anything. Cut it off or report them to the Police

but don't do both.

Right on the boundary of criminal damage cutting a chain off and an uninformed plod might nick you for it (though I doubt you'd get charged, but don't want the hassle of an arrest. Was there any requirement for a release fee? If so how much. Any signs warning of clamping - the words are important. Authority to clamp is granted by implied acceptance of a contract.

I wonder why they think that The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 wouldn't apply to them?

If you don't fancy cutting it off then that the above act is where you start.

slowbike

So glad I have a set of bolt croppers .... although that being away from home I'd have to get home first .... so I'd be royally pissed off ...

I wonder what right they have to arrest a bike? I assume it must be on publicly accessible private property?

diy

They have none..

It goes a bit like this.. they put up a sign which basically says don't do X, but if you do you agree that we can do Y and if you want us to undo Y you have to pay Z. Thus a contract is formed by you reading the sign and doing X.

In the absense of one and depending on their plan they have wrongfully interfered with the goods, contrary to The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. Specifically it will be Conversion or Trespass depending on what exactly they plan. Your claim would be damages to remedy the wrongful interference.

But a defence to criminal damage for the removal of the lock also exists so you have some options.

joelsim

Slowbike wrote:

So glad I have a set of bolt croppers .... although that being away from home I'd have to get home first .... so I'd be royally pissed off ...

I wonder what right they have to arrest a bike? I assume it must be on publicly accessible private property?

With you on that one. I have no idea how much it costs to remove but I bet a small fortune

andy9964

Cut off via padlock, and accept free cable as compensation for scratches

Initialised

Yet another reason we need to adopt a Scottish/Nordic Right to roam. If you can reasonably access the area by bike then you can ride there reasonably.

Stop this stupid distinction and let people ride, skate, scoot, rollerblade, segway or whatever wherever they please with the backup of strict liability in the event that they injure a pedestrian and blanket CCTV coverage to remove any questions of fault in urban or high traffic areas.

The Rookie

Car clamping was legal until expressly outlawed by the Protection of Freedoms Act, as a bike isn't a motor vehicle then PoFA doesn't make this illegal.

You will be on the same sticky 'criminal damage' wicket as those who tried to remove car clamps (civil, not council).

You can always pay for the release and then make a court claim against the immobiliser AND the landowner who hired them, this has a lot of success, never just the immobiliser as they rarely have any assets a bailiff can seize so just ignore the court claim and result.

slowbike

The Rookie wrote:

You will be on the same sticky 'criminal damage' wicket as those who tried to remove car clamps (civil, not council).

Only if they can identify you - that is, you who removed the lock and the bike, not even just you the bike owner.

Taking that forward I could see a situation where you could hold the landowner/clamper liable for the loss of your bike that "someone else" has removed because they forced you to leave your bike at a time/place that you would not normally do so ...

The Rookie

True, they will have to identify you and that is harder than with a car.

I think you'd struggle with such a claim when the means of getting it released is readily available.

CitizenLee

How can they prove you saw the sign in the first place?

slowbike

The Rookie wrote:

I think you'd struggle with such a claim when the means of getting it released is readily available.

Well - if all you have to do is phone a number ... that depends on you having a phone - or one with charge or being able to get to one.... and if it's a public phone then you need the money to make the call - I don't usually ride with cards or change.

There's no indication there if there's a release fee - if not then it's not so bad - but if they want to charge you a nominal £50 then that might be prohibitive for some - especially just before payday - then you have no choice but to leave the bike outside in a public place until you can pay and that means it's vulnerable.

Yes, you'd struggle, but I think there's grounds for a case ...

The Rookie

CitizenLee wrote:

How can they prove you saw the sign in the first place?

You pay and take it to court and put the reverse burden on them to prove you did, a judge will rule on balance of probabilities.

For all those encouraging him to cut it off, bear in mind you are also committing an offence if the removal is deemed to be criminal damage by encouraging him to take that course of action - something to think on.

slowbike

The Rookie wrote:

For all those encouraging him to cut it off, bear in mind you are also committing an offence if the removal is deemed to be criminal damage by encouraging him to take that course of action - something to think on.

Surely that's only criminal damage if they had the right to restrain the bike to start with?

The Rookie

Yes, which is why I said in the bit you quoted 'if the removal is deemed to be criminal damage'......

Presumably you are aware what would make it NOT criminal damage (as the starting would be that it is and he would have to avail himself of one of the statutory defences)....

slowbike

The Rookie wrote:

Yes, which is why I said in the bit you quoted 'if the removal is deemed to be criminal damage'......

Presumably you are aware what would make it NOT criminal damage (as the starting would be that it is and he would have to avail himself of one of the statutory defences)....

Ah - you confused me a bit - you seem to have said "it's only against the law if it's seen to be against the law" ... which is kinda obvious ...

diy

I don't agree with Rookie, I think section 5,2b gives a good defence. and 5, 3 gives a fairly good backup. Simply work on the basis that you thought it was an unlawful scam or an attempt to convert or nick the bike and you'll have a defence. If it subsequently turns out to be invalid your defence is still valid as long as you honestly held the belief at the time. CPS charging standard is also full of caution to prosecutors on this.

People have got off criminal damage for breaking doors down to houses when drunk, because they mistakenly believed that it was their mates house. That doesn't mean the lock owner can't seek damages for the lock, but then you'd counter claim for interference with goods or offer a couple of quid as settlement for the lock, which would probably mean they couldn't afford to bring the claim to a district judge given the costs would be greater than the award.

This has nothing to do with right to roam, a land owner has to take great care securing or disposing of your property to avoid a claim for conversion or trespass. Just because your property is on his property doesn't mean he can do what he likes with it. Certainly can't start charging you a penalty for the release of your goods.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/criminal_damage/

@OP can I use your photo to carry on the debate on a legal forum?

The Rookie

I agree you need an honestly held belief that what you were doing was lawful, if that belief is not honestly held then it's unlawful.

I've never said that wasn't the case, so not sure how you can disagree with me, what I pointed out was that just cutting it off could be criminal damage and that is entirely true.

diy

All of these bits.

The Rookie wrote:

For all those encouraging him to cut it off, bear in mind you are also committing an offence if the removal is deemed to be criminal damage by encouraging him to take that course of action - something to think on.

The Rookie wrote:

You will be on the same sticky 'criminal damage' wicket as those who tried to remove car clamps (civil, not council

The Rookie wrote:

I think you'd struggle with such a claim when the means of getting it released is readily available.

Emphursis

There are signs covering that area saying no cycling, which is completely understandable given the amount of pedestrians and the fact that if you work there, there are massive bike parking racks in each offices car park bay. If you don't, there are dozens of bike racks on Tooley Street.

The Rookie

Great DIY, so again, point out where I actually said it WAS unlawful?

Clue, I didn't......at all......ever, you could try reading what you quote sometimes?

Note that the last comment was in relation to him suing if it was stolen damaged while he couldn't ride off on it and was nothing to do with cutting it loose at all......

diy

Fine if you want it blow by blow here it is:

The Rookie wrote:

For all those encouraging him to cut it off, bear in mind you are also committing an offence if the removal is deemed to be criminal damage by encouraging him to take that course of action - something to think on.

A says to B, I think you can cut that off because I don't think they have any right to clamp you. B cuts the lock off and is arrested for criminal damage. It goes to court, the court hears ALL the evidence including facts A was not aware of, like a warning sign for example. B is convicted of criminal damage, because the court rejected his claim that he had an honestly held belief that he had lawful authority. For A to also be guilty of an offence the same tests need to be applied. You have said if B is guilty so is A - that is wrong.

The Rookie wrote:

You will be on the same sticky 'criminal damage' wicket as those who tried to remove car clamps (civil, not council

No you wont because the law relating to clamping motor vehicles is different and has been tested in different ways. Specifically there are decided cases relating to motor vehicles being clamped and specific rules regarding the rights of the land owner. In addition the security of a motor vehicle left clamped for a period of time is entirely different giving a different justification for the protection of property.

The Rookie wrote:

I think you'd struggle with such a claim when the means of getting it released is readily available.

Read up on interference with goods. Its fascinating stuff. honest

The Rookie

Actually it's not wrong, if B committed CD and A abetted him he was also guilty whether his belief was honestly held or not, the honestly held belief is only a defence to the CD not the aiding and abetting.

Actually I am not wrong, until it was outlawed by PoFA there was no 'law relating to clamping motor vehicles' privately (other than latterly needing to be SIA licensed which was meaningless), it was all covered under other laws which would equally relate to a bike. Perhaps you can tell me the statute you think applies to MV's only?

The third point is out of context as it was relating to the cyclist claiming for losses if the bike was left there rather than them paying to have it remove, in which case you would struggle to make a claim stick if you had taken no such action, even if it was a torturous interference which is unlikely.

Before quoting the law, it helps to know what it is!

swod1

Even if there is signs up saying no cycling, who's to say the poster wasn't walking with the bike and locked it up to go into a shop in the area etc.

Personally I'd cut it off and take my bike away but if the person has done this be careful if something comes back on them as already mentioned.

Any update to this thread with what has happened?

The Rookie

As we don't know what signs are there or what they say, that's a bit premature....

diy

We agree Signage is important, the moment you consent (by seeing the sign and chancing it) you pretty much end your right to b!tch and moan legally. You do of course still have rights if the terms of the contract don't hold up. e.g. unfair terms in consumer contracts, Penalty clauses, the requirements around rights to claim trespass etc.

andymphillips

Cut it off and leave the remains with a note telling them to stick it where the sun don't shine. I would like to see them try to track you down.

The Rookie

Oh well if they do and read this post, we'll see you in court for aiding and abetting....don't be a Neanderthal all your life!