Legal Query ref. Lost Property

RadoJo

I can completely see why you're annoyed about it, and I think to a certain extent it's justified, but if the nice person who found it for you left it somewhere 'obvious' so that a colleague would be able to find it for you when you came in, then that would be sensible, but also presumably open to theft (which I am guessing is what happened, either by a member of the gym or another member of staff) so even though it's gone missing, it might have been because of a genuine attempt to help you out.

Not that any of that brings your watch back of course, but this seems a reasonable scenario which would account for what has happened, and although it might be technically/legally negligent, it's not in the spirit of what the person was trying to do for you. However, it wasn't my watch, so it's easy for me to be dispassionate about it!

RobbiGee

I've just chatted to the person who I originally spoke to. She apparently put it in the safe from where it has gone missing.

gordikin

RobbiGee wrote: »

I've just chatted to the person who I originally spoke to. She apparently put it in the safe from where it has gone missing.

No negligence then perhaps?

RobbiGee

gordikin wrote: »

No negligence then perhaps?

If a member of staff has either taken it for themselves or given to another guest does that not support the moral side of me wanting replacement/reimbursement?

Granted no negligence on the individual (assuming she didn't take it!) but on the company there must be an expectation to pay ?

somethingcorporate

Personally, I agree with Anihilator.

I think you don't really have a leg to stand on as you contributed to their negligence by leaving it in the first place and them offering you something at all is better than what I feel you are entitled to. I would take their offer.

There are often signs all over gyms with exclusion clauses to the effect of saying goods left at own risk and I see no reason as to why this would not apply to this situation - they didn't stipulate otherwise.

90 times out of 100 leaving something in the locker room would result in someone pinching it anyway, so count yourself lucky you will have something to show for it rather than nothing.

gordikin

It could be argued that the gym/employee took all reasonable steps to safeguard your property. As to what has happened to your watch we can only guess. Personally in your place I'd feel a degree of responsibility if I myself had left it behind in the changing room....had you not done that?

RobbiGee

Somethingcorporate: I'm not saying I won't go down the moral route of accepting, I'm just interested what the law would say. How would you feel if it was a £3000 engagement ring, would you apply the same "well it could have been nicked" theory ?

For me, and some others it seems, those signs you refer to cover general possession while on the property. Once the member of staff, and therefore the company, acknowledged receipt of the item and offered to care for it until collected they then accepted responsibility for the item (whether it's expensive or not) and are therefore liable for it's loss.

RobbiGee

gordikin wrote: »

It could be argued that the gym/employee took all reasonable steps to safeguard your property. As to what has happened to your watch we can only guess. Personally in your place I'd feel a degree of responsibility if I myself had left it behind in the changing room....had you not done that?

Gordi: I refer you to my post above. Can absolutely understand where you are coming from, I've calmed down from my original post but remain interested where I would stand if it did come down to it.

I'm yet to be persuaded that other than the reliance on the owner of the propoerty being nice enough to let them off (for whatever reason, moral or otherwise) that if it came down to it they would be liable.

Precedents in court of these types of laws refer to "lost furs" etc so it happened once upon a time! :rotfl:

somethingcorporate

I feel for you and if it were me I would certainly be chasing them for whatever I could, but I feel that anything rather than nothing is a victory, especially given the circumstances described.

It could really come down to the wording of these signs. If they represent personal belongings at any time whilst on the premises are not covered then unless the employee explicitly represents the opposite, I would assume you would be bound by these exclusion clauses. Otherwise you're trying to argue that actions overrode explicitly stated signs, which is going to be quite hard to do!

Morally, keep going, but legally I think you're quids in being offered anything.

RobbiGee

see i'd say different, morally I'm quids in with their offer, legally i'm due the lot haha!!