Hulk smashing a door off someone's shed isn't civil.
Locking something that is not yours
- Thread starter A2Z
- Start date
- Status
Hulk smashing a door off someone's shed isn't civil.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 3,772
- Location
- North-West
Would pay to watch this new Hulk film in the cinema.
But I'm still sure property damage is a civil lawsuit. The CPS could pick it up as criminal damage but I'd like to think they would be focusing their efforts on more important things.
HULK SMASH?!
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
Sounds like you behaved like a pillock and because of a minor hassle, destroyed the very shed designed to protect your bike 
Why didn’t you just wait for 1 minute, get a copy of the key and then raise your frustration with the maintenance man for 1) not having received a letter 2) being inconvenienced whilst getting to your bike 3) the ease in which access was gained
Why didn’t you just wait for 1 minute, get a copy of the key and then raise your frustration with the maintenance man for 1) not having received a letter 2) being inconvenienced whilst getting to your bike 3) the ease in which access was gained
Typical cyclist to be honest. I bet he wears a 1 piece lycra condom and posts helmet cam videos on YouTube too.
CPS wouldn’t need to be involved. The cops have the authority to charge for criminal damage.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 3,772
- Location
- North-West
Who takes it to court then?
Edit: you learn something new every day minimal damage can go to magistrates!
Found the wolf
With that logic, does that mean that if i suddenly need a couple of grand of my own money, but the bank is closed as it's a weekend, that i could calmly hop along to my local bank branch, break down the door, then break the safe door and take my couple of grand? After all, it's rightfully mine, and i have proof
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,763
- Location
- Auckland
OP, where did you store your bike after you returned home? I mean, apart from the shed which had just had increased security added and you then destroyed in a petulant rage.
So if I took your car and claimed I was going to return it at some point, that's not theft because I wasn't permanently depriving you of it? Maybe not, but it would be illegal and I'm sure you wouldn't be OK with it.
Personally, I think both people in this scenario are in the wrong. Sounds like a case for Jeremy Kyle...oh wait.
It wouldn't necessarily be theft, but it would be TWOC.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,322
- Location
- Birmingham
I think the OP is in the right here.
If the OP rents the property he has some rights over this shed too. The shed was made available for bike storage then his possession was locked inside with no warning.
If you know how long it takes to ride to a destination and plan your timing accordingly, then a couple of minutes does matter. Why would the OP expect anything other than being able to immediately access his bike as he has done on numerous occassions before.
I cant see the police being interested in a resident breaking into a shed on their own (rental) property to access their own belongings. If i lost my garage key and had to break the door down thats not criminal damage but Id have to pay the repair. In this case the cause wasnt a lost key it was someone else changing the lock without notice, so Id agree with the OP that this is their own stupid fault.
If the OP rents the property he has some rights over this shed too. The shed was made available for bike storage then his possession was locked inside with no warning.
If you know how long it takes to ride to a destination and plan your timing accordingly, then a couple of minutes does matter. Why would the OP expect anything other than being able to immediately access his bike as he has done on numerous occassions before.
I cant see the police being interested in a resident breaking into a shed on their own (rental) property to access their own belongings. If i lost my garage key and had to break the door down thats not criminal damage but Id have to pay the repair. In this case the cause wasnt a lost key it was someone else changing the lock without notice, so Id agree with the OP that this is their own stupid fault.
I don't think the op was right, especially after the caretaker offered to go and get a key.
He committed criminal damage and made the bike shed insecure for any other users.
I suspect the Op would have been far more annoyed if the shed had been broken into and his bike stolen and it turned out that something could have been done to secure it but wasn't, or it turned out that some idiot had got upset at a couple of minutes delay and had broken the shed allowing a thief unrestricted access.
I suspect that the tenancy/lease agreement probably covers both things like changing the locks on the shed/communal facilities if and when required, and the correct way to deal with a problem arising from it, I suspect the correct way to deal with a problem as outlined in the agreement isn't going to be "cause damage so the property is insecure".
If I was the op, I would pay up before the police or small claims court get involved and the cost increases dramatically (and be grateful it doesn't sound like the caretaker/management company had to call in an outside tradesman, or he could easily be looking at £75+ just for the callout to fix the damage, before any materials).
Getting angry and breaking things (especially that belong to other people) tends to have a price.
He committed criminal damage and made the bike shed insecure for any other users.
I suspect the Op would have been far more annoyed if the shed had been broken into and his bike stolen and it turned out that something could have been done to secure it but wasn't, or it turned out that some idiot had got upset at a couple of minutes delay and had broken the shed allowing a thief unrestricted access.
I suspect that the tenancy/lease agreement probably covers both things like changing the locks on the shed/communal facilities if and when required, and the correct way to deal with a problem arising from it, I suspect the correct way to deal with a problem as outlined in the agreement isn't going to be "cause damage so the property is insecure".
If I was the op, I would pay up before the police or small claims court get involved and the cost increases dramatically (and be grateful it doesn't sound like the caretaker/management company had to call in an outside tradesman, or he could easily be looking at £75+ just for the callout to fix the damage, before any materials).
Getting angry and breaking things (especially that belong to other people) tends to have a price.
Last edited:
But lets say your train is at 11:45am. You know it takes 12 minutes to cycle to the station. Do you really set off at 11:33am? If they aren't very frequent (we assume not, given the urgency he must make this train) surely you give yourself at least 5 minutes spare?
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Aug 2011
- Posts
- 682
I have no experience in these matters, but would it not be you are liable for the repair to the door, but you can then counter claim against the maintenance man for inviting the sequence?
You're probably going to find your contract says use of bike shed is desretionary, subject to change without notice and at your own risk. You're probably also going to find your liable for any damage you cause and if you don't cough up you'll be evicted and it taken from your bond / persued.
Happy days.
Happy days.
- Status