Employer cuts D-lock

[carlislemike]

Did I miss something? What happened to your bike? It is totally irrelevant now but something similar happened to me, 48 years ago. I locked my bike up, imo safely, to the fence outside London University Library. No signage that this was illegal/wrong in any way. I had done this over a period of months and this was in 1976, long before people got pernickety about locking bikes to fairly boring fencing.

I came down later that day, no bike and no locks. Obviously no mobile phones in those days so went into the Porters' Offices. Yes they had done it under the direction of a knob head in management. Bike safely stored away inside. Cue storm into the manager's office. Yes he had directed it as they had a policy to remove bikes from the front of Senate House but no signs on display and no warning notes on bikes. Cue me moving into officious mode, No signs, No warnings, Criminal Damage etc. etc. Apologies offered, reimbursement given but still no provision of safe cycling locking spaces. Persist, be a pest, get your union involved, small claims court etc.

Good luck

[pete75]

It wasn't cycle parking. It was railings around a building. If it was something designed and designated as cycle parking you'd have a point. It wasn't so you haven't.

If it was used as cycle parking, it was cycle parking, and there probably wasn't enough better cycle parking nearby, which makes its removal without replacement even less ethical.

Imagine if a car parked in a future construction zone on a road and when the time came, the builders bust its locks, pushed its away and left it. There would be outcries in press and Parliament. The builders would have it towed and impounded until the owner collected it. That's that should have happened here.

I agree (mostly). Removing the bikes was right. Leaving them piled up wherever was not. They should have been taken to a secure storage facility and some contact details given for owners to reclaim them.

However, I don't think the contractors should be under any obligation to provide alternative parking. After all, if parking is being suspended on a road, there's no extra parking made available; motorists just have to find somewhere else. But I also think one week's notice is probably too short.

Lets get this straight it, wasn't official cycle parking, people were just choosing to lock their bikes to the railings. Why is a weeks notice too short. Certainly if I was somewhere with my bike and thought, I'll lock it to those railings over there, got closer and saw a sign saying they were to be removed that very day, along with any bikes locked to them I wouldn't put my bike there. Would you? Wouldn't anyone who did be somewhat stupid?.

[Bmblbzzz]

Because it's very common for bikes and cars to be left in one place for more than one week without being moved or attended to.

[Carlton green]

Because it's very common for bikes and cars to be left in one place for more than one week without being moved or attended to.

When you park your bike or car on someone else’s land then you either do it with their permission (and obey their rules) or lay yourself open to adverse consequences. It’s simple really.

[PH]

Because it's very common for bikes and cars to be left in one place for more than one week without being moved or attended to.

When you park your bike or car on someone else’s land then you either do it with their permission (and obey their rules) or lay yourself open to adverse consequences. It’s simple really.

It isn't simple, that's why it's such fun batting opinions around. If anyone suffers a sufficient loss or enough indignation to take the matter further, it won't be decided on regulation or legal precedent, but on whether there as a contract in place and if not which parties acted reasonably.
It could be argued that a notice saying bikes chained to a railing will be removed forms a contract, that's effectively what notices in car parks do. Otherwise what was reasonable? My opinion would be that removing a lock to gain access is, but leaving a bike unsecured isn't. Doesn't matter if someone else has a different opinion, the only one that matters is that of whoever comes to judge it.

[Bmblbzzz]

Legally, CG may well be correct (it could be an interesting legal case whether a cycle with its wheels on the highway but chained to private railings is "on private land" but I for one will leave that to the lawyers). The larger picture is that what you have a right to do isn't always reasonable.

[Airsporter1st]

Because it's very common for bikes and cars to be left in one place for more than one week without being moved or attended to.

When you park your bike or car on someone else’s land then you either do it with their permission (and obey their rules) or lay yourself open to adverse consequences. It’s simple really.

It isn't simple, that's why it's such fun batting opinions around. If anyone suffers a sufficient loss or enough indignation to take the matter further, it won't be decided on regulation or legal precedent, but on whether there as a contract in place and if not which parties acted reasonably.
It could be argued that a notice saying bikes chained to a railing will be removed forms a contract, that's effectively what notices in car parks do. Otherwise what was reasonable? My opinion would be that removing a lock to gain access is, but leaving a bike unsecured isn't. Doesn't matter if someone else has a different opinion, the only one that matters is that of whoever comes to judge it.

I thought for a contract to exist, there must be, at a minimum: an offer, an acceptance and a consideration.

Hard to see how that works in the cases you cite?

[PH]

It isn't simple, that's why it's such fun batting opinions around. If anyone suffers a sufficient loss or enough indignation to take the matter further, it won't be decided on regulation or legal precedent, but on whether there as a contract in place and if not which parties acted reasonably.
It could be argued that a notice saying bikes chained to a railing will be removed forms a contract, that's effectively what notices in car parks do. Otherwise what was reasonable? My opinion would be that removing a lock to gain access is, but leaving a bike unsecured isn't. Doesn't matter if someone else has a different opinion, the only one that matters is that of whoever comes to judge it.

I thought for a contract to exist, there must be, at a minimum: an offer, an acceptance and a consideration.

Hard to see how that works in the cases you cite?

The offer is the notice in the car park
The acceptance is you parking there
The consideration is you purchasing and displaying a ticket (Or whatever terms are in the notice)

Contracts can be explicit or implied, or contain elements of both.

[mjr]

It isn't simple, that's why it's such fun batting opinions around. If anyone suffers a sufficient loss or enough indignation to take the matter further, it won't be decided on regulation or legal precedent, but on whether there as a contract in place and if not which parties acted reasonably.
It could be argued that a notice saying bikes chained to a railing will be removed forms a contract, that's effectively what notices in car parks do. Otherwise what was reasonable? My opinion would be that removing a lock to gain access is, but leaving a bike unsecured isn't. Doesn't matter if someone else has a different opinion, the only one that matters is that of whoever comes to judge it.

I thought for a contract to exist, there must be, at a minimum: an offer, an acceptance and a consideration.

Hard to see how that works in the cases you cite?

The offer is the notice in the car park
The acceptance is you parking there
The consideration is you purchasing and displaying a ticket (Or whatever terms are in the notice)

Contracts can be explicit or implied, or contain elements of both.

Were people parking bikes by the railings buying tickets? If not, what consideration existed to form a contract?

[Bonefishblues]

I think we're in the realm of common law here. Stick your bike on my property contrary to my notices and I have the right to remove it. I must however take reasonable care not to damage or lose it when so doing.

[PH]

Were people parking bikes by the railings buying tickets? If not, what consideration existed to form a contract?

No, they weren't.

It could be argued that a notice saying bikes chained to a railing will be removed forms a contract

it wouldn't be hard to write a notice to put on railings that did form a contract, maybe saying they'd be removed and returned for a consideration. But the point of my post was that such things were decided...

...on whether there as a contract in place and if not which parties acted reasonably.

So if we agree that no contract was in place, do we also agree that the principal will be one of reasonableness? And if so, is there any point in going back and forth on what anyone here might consider reasonable when none of us get to define it?

[thirdcrank]

No expertise here except from Citizens Advice training long ago.

I fancy that the contract to be considered is the OP's employment contract, much of which will not be in writing. It depends what rules the employer has about personal property - in this case pedal cycles - being stored at work. AIUI, these cannot be summarily changed. So, if an employee were to be off work, they wouldn't expect to return to find a changed working system and their desk, locker whatever forced unannouced with their personal property junked.

I think the implication of the opening post - that the employer should have anticipated this problem - may be right. The employer's case might be that they did so. It looksas though we will never know

[Airsporter1st]

It isn't simple, that's why it's such fun batting opinions around. If anyone suffers a sufficient loss or enough indignation to take the matter further, it won't be decided on regulation or legal precedent, but on whether there as a contract in place and if not which parties acted reasonably.
It could be argued that a notice saying bikes chained to a railing will be removed forms a contract, that's effectively what notices in car parks do. Otherwise what was reasonable? My opinion would be that removing a lock to gain access is, but leaving a bike unsecured isn't. Doesn't matter if someone else has a different opinion, the only one that matters is that of whoever comes to judge it.

I thought for a contract to exist, there must be, at a minimum: an offer, an acceptance and a consideration.

Hard to see how that works in the cases you cite?

The offer is the notice in the car park
The acceptance is you parking there
The consideration is you purchasing and displaying a ticket (Or whatever terms are in the notice)

Contracts can be explicit or implied, or contain elements of both.

Understood. However, in UK law as I understand it, there is also the aspect of ‘intention to be legally bound’, i.e. that a contract is only legally enforceable if the parties intended it to be a binding contract.

Without the intention to be legally bound, it may be impossible to enforce the contract.

[PH]

The offer is the notice in the car park
The acceptance is you parking there
The consideration is you purchasing and displaying a ticket (Or whatever terms are in the notice)

Understood. However, in UK law as I understand it, there is also the aspect of ‘intention to be legally bound’, i.e. that a contract is only legally enforceable if the parties intended it to be a binding contract.

If you believe that to be the case, you need never pay for parking again. Though it might be advisable to seek clarification first. There is also the difference between the existence of a contract and the ability to enforce it.

https://www.retailmotorlaw.co.uk/index. ... 20contract.