Bike locks cut off, Dulwich Leisure Centre

[Dammit]

Hi, I (along with a few others) used to keep a bike lock locked around one of the supports of the roof-structure type affair down the side of the leisure centre by the bike stands.

I popped in this morning to grab my lock to find that they'd all been cut off.

I'm a regular gym-goer, but in the cold weather I have to admit that I'd been either walking to the gym or driving if later in the day- so I don't actually know when this happened.

I spoke to someone from the gym and they said that they had put signs up- can anyone confirm this?

Can anyone confirm when it happened?

I'd have taken my lock away with me if I was aware that a) leaving locks was not allowed and/or b) they were going to be cut off.

The chap I spoke to from the centre said that one of his colleagues had turned up to work at the centre to find that her lock had been cut off and disposed of- which would seem to indicate that a) leaving locks was a convention and b) communication with regards to the lock-cutting project had been less than effective.

[Dapacouly]

Hi Dammit, I am sorry for you. These locks can be expensive, that's a real pain.

Having said that, from a legal standpoint, you had left something on a private property, it probably didn't have your name/number on it, you had no written authorisation to leave it there so technically, you are not in a good place to try and recover that cost. In this scenario, I am not even sure they would have had to tell anyone about cuting those locks tbh. Imagine someone attaches a lock on one of the gutters of your house, well, you'd probably be entitled to remove it at your convenience.

Prob best to try and have a smooth conversation with the manager of the gym and propose something like to split cost for a new lock or something.

Good luck with that.

[LadyDeliah]

Leaving the lock there could technically be criminal damage as anything that takes some effort to remedy in relation to property can be classed as criminal damage.

[Rianoo]

Only if damage has occurred (by the offender) otherwise no case. Damage your own property removing offending items then it is tough luck. In any case leaving your lock on someone elses property, without asking permission (I'm guessing), is presumptuous at best.

[LadyDeliah]

Sorry, that's not correct. Sticking a sticker on a wall or phone box constitutes criminal damage, because it takes effort to remove. There was even a case where water soluable drawings were considered to be criminal damage:

Hardman v Chief Constable for Avon and Somerset (1986) Bristol Crown Ct Llewellyn-Jones J and Justices - Held: The local authority incurred expense and inconvenience to put matters right. Therefore, the defendants had caused criminal damage.

[Rianoo]

You missed the point completely - a sticker or water soluble drawing will not help prevent your bike being knicked ;-). Nor will the person who placed the sticker on the wall return to use it. Whereas the lock will be returned to for use but without agreement - it can be seen as a "given" which as I said is presumptous at best - although I doubt the gym would press charges for criminal damage. Albeit glad your reseach back to '86 got you from technically to constitutes.

[LadyDeliah]

Err, my point was that leaving a bike lock on a pipe belonging to someone else without their permission and requiring someone to cut it off to remove it, could technically be criminal damage.

You said it wasn't so I dug out authority to show you that it is.

Also saying something constitutes an offence, means it forms the parts of an offence, so not sure why you think mentioning that something forms part of an offence is different from saying the behaviour is technically an offence.

Definition of constitute

con?sti?tute

[kon-sti-toot, -tyoot] Show IPA

verb (used with object), con?sti?tut?ed, con?sti?tut?ing.

1. to compose; form: mortar constituted of lime and sand.

2. to appoint to an office or function; make or create: He was constituted treasurer.

3. to establish (laws, an institution, etc.).

4. to give legal form to (an assembly, court, etc.).

5. to create or be tantamount to: Imports constitute a challenge to local goods.

Should I type that a bit more slowly, so you can catch up?

[loobylou]

At the risk of being shot down, I've always wondered why people leave their locks...why not take them with yoy? I look forward to being enlightened...

[loobylou]

* or even you..

[Rianoo]

@LadyD/Che

OK - we go down your route and arrest the presumptous gym goers that leave a lock on the gym property and take proceedings against them. I am sure the gym would lose quite a bit of business and create very bad press for themselves. But as you say the law is the law and they can quote the Hardman '86 case just in case. Just to be a little more heartless they can then give 5 different definitions of the word constitute to the plaintiff when only one is applicable ?!?!. Slightly deranged.

[LadyDeliah]

I didn't suggest they be arrested, I was merely pointing out the legal position.

I couldn't care less whether the Fusion gum wish to enforce their rights against people such as the OP, that wasn't my point.

You were wrong, so why not just accept it?

And in furtherance of your legal education, a plaintiff is someone who brings an action in court, not the person having the action brought against them, but is referred to as a claimant or appellant in English law, depending in the context and the one defending would be the Respondent.

However in criminal proceedings, such as in cases of criminal damage, it would be the prosecution (usually the state) who brought the action against the defendant.

Better now?

[Penguin68]

I didn't suggest they be arrested, I was merely pointing out the legal position.

I do not believe that you are correct here. The lock does not adhere or interfere with the physcial structure (as a sticker or soluable wall paint would) - it is much more analogous to e.g. branches from a neighbour's tree which overhang your property - and can be argued as such. Here you have a right to cut-off the branches (although you should return these off-cuts to your neighbour) - as much effort as cutting-off the locks - but there is absolutely no issue of criminality or criminal damage here, so no opportuinity for arrest.

The leisure centre has the right to cut-off the locks (cannot themselves be sued for damage) as these locks are left on their property - as you could throw away something dumped in your front-garden by a passer-by - but these are possible civil, not criminal offences - effectively trespass.

Interestingly, such an action on 'public' property (the leisure centre isn't) might be the criminal offence of littering.

You cannot argue damage where the physical structure or integrity of the item being 'damaged' is not altered.

The case quoted is, as quoted, frankly, poor law. Local authorities have to clean things in the streets as a matter of course (go to an effort to clean) - it would be ridiculous to suggest that someone who litters (which is also an offence) is additionally guilty of criminal damage, because the authority has had to go to the effort of cleaning up the litter.

[Rianoo]

I still need to be convinced if not for my furtherance but for the OP. Stickers or graffiti are acts of vandalism. Locks can be removed without damage. Please can you be a bit more condescending in response it paints a great picture.

[LadyDeliah]

I agree it's arguable, but don't agree that there must be an interference with the pysical structure to be considered to be damage. The CPS website says:

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 (the Act) repealed the common law and statutory offences of arson. Only a few of the offences contrary to the Malicious Damage Act 1861 remain. The Act is now the primary source of offences of damage to property.

Damage is not defined by the Act. The courts have construed the term liberally. Damage is not limited to permanent damage, so smearing mud on the walls of a police cell may be criminal damage. What constitutes damage is a matter of fact and degree and it is for the court, using its common sense, to decide whether what occurred is damage (Archbold 23-6).

The damage need not be visible or tangible if it affects the value or performance of the property.

Also see:

The authorities show that the term "damage" for the purpose of this provision, should be widely interpreted so as to conclude not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim. L.R. 48, Q.B.D.

[CF]

hi

we leave our bike lock there each day as my husband or i use it each day.

they did not put up any signs, that is a lie!

one day our bike lock was there, the next day it was not

we complained as my husband had no where to lock his bike

they kept it in the office while he went for a work out and they offered us a refund of our 50% of our gym membership to pay for a new lock.

the reason they gave for cutting them off was that they looked 'untidy'!

[Callie]

CF Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> hi

>

> we leave our bike lock there each day as my

> husband or i use it each day.

>

> they did not put up any signs, that is a lie!

>

> one day our bike lock was there, the next day it

> was not

>

> we complained as my husband had no where to lock

> his bike

>

> they kept it in the office while he went for a

> work out and they offered us a refund of our 50%

> of our gym membership to pay for a new lock.

>

> the reason they gave for cutting them off was that

> they looked 'untidy'!

:0 Please tell me this is a joke

[LadyDeliah]

No not a joke. Can't believe they had the temerity to complain. I'm shocked they got offered 50% off their gym membership, they should have been charged for the cost of removing them.

[spark67]

To be fair the leaving of locks by cyclists at a place they go to all the time is a pretty common practice, having cycled for over 15 years I notice it a lot, usually where I have worked. I don't leave mine as I use it a lot..for example if I stop off to get some shopping on way home. Sometimes, in rare cases people use it to "reserve a space" I know this as when I have used a rack with a lock attached when there are no other empty ones I have been challenged, once by a cyclist who arrived while I was there saying "it's his space" & one time I had a note stuck to my saddle...mostly though people just leave them for convenience.

In this case wether the leaving of locks is criminal damage or not ...and as even some of the staff seem to leave locks too, the management should have put up a notice before removing in the name of good customer relations & if they do not want people to leave locks should have a permanent notice saying so & that locks will be removed if they do.

Ps This thread getting mental like most threads do on here in the end *waits to get trolled* :)

[LadyDeliah]

Spark67, I agree with your post, but what annoyed me about the OP was the sense of having a manifest right to leave their lock on someone elses' property and expect compensation for the cost of the lock when the owner of the property removed it.

I was pretty dumbfounded by the blatant cheek of it and tried to explain in a roundabout way, that not only did they not have a right to do this, but their actions could technically amount to a criminal offence.

And another piss taker complaining about the same thing after she'd been offered 50% reduction in her gym fees! WTF

I'm possibly getting wound up by something inconsquential, but people like that make me want to give them a good hard slap.

[foxtailandfern]

I could not agree with you more, LadyDeliah. :))

I'm glad some of us on these forums still have their heads screwed on.

[the-e-dealer]

LD you are right.

They do look untidy. And why is it that Cyclists have some sort of divine right over their and other's property?

[LadyDeliah]

Ted, these guys don't represent all cyclists thanks very much!

In fact any real cyclist would take their lock with them cos they tend to visit more than one place a week.

[the-e-dealer]

You mean they leave a bit of rusty metal forcibley attached to the building for weeks and wonder why they are removed? Muppets !

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The authorities show that the term "damage" for the purpose of this provision, should be widely

> interpreted so as to conclude not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or

> temporary impairment of value or usefulness Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim. L.R. 48, Q.B.D.

Out of interest, why does this not apply to clamps applied to cars?

[LadyDeliah]

Loz, I think it did and that was why they had to stop using them. I know their legality was challenged, but can't remember on what grounds.