Who was responsible for the theft of my bike?

missile

You have no case, make sure you get proper insurance.

Altarf

missile wrote: »

You have no case

I disagree. I think that the OP does have a case, albeit, not a great one.

1. The managing agents of the building (presumably appointed by the landlord) instructed the OP to not store his bike on his balcony where it was secure, for a very dubious reason.

2. The managing agents instructed the OP to store his bike in a basement area, where they (not the OP) had installed cycle storage facilities.

3. It is clearly known that cycle theft is a problem, but the managing agents/landlord had not taken reasonable care to ensure that access to the basement was secure, and that the cycle racks were suitable for their purpose.

4. Since the whole bike rack was stolen, the OP's lock securing their bike to the rack was obviously more secure than the rack, and the OP had done all they could to secure their bike where the managing agents/landlord told them to.

5. It was not until the OP's bike had been stolen that the managing agents/landlord tried to remove their responsibility by putting up signs.

Had the managing agents/landlord not interfered with the OP's quiet enjoyment of the property that they rented, and when they did interfere have taken reasonable precautions to prevent theft, then the OP would not have had their bike stolen.

Since the OP had recovered some of their loss from their insurance company, then I would be tempted to send the managing agents/landlord a final letter before action, advising that if they don't pay for the difference between the insurance payout and the bike's value, that it will go to court. For the amount involved, they may just choose to settle.

Hammyman

Altarf wrote: »

I disagree. I think that the OP does have a case, albeit, not a great one.

1. The managing agents of the building (presumably appointed by the landlord) instructed the OP to not store his bike on his balcony where it was secure, for a very dubious reason.
.

Slight problem with that lot - the OP could have stored the bike in their flat. There was no "interfering with enjoyment of the property" because there would have been rules were clearly laid down in regards to balconies and external appearance.

Altarf

Hammyman wrote: »

Slight problem with that lot - the OP could have stored the bike in their flat. There was no "interfering with enjoyment of the property" because there would have been rules were clearly laid down in regards to balconies and external appearance.

Are you sure there were? Specific rules about not storing a bike on a balcony. Possibly about hanging washing out to dry, but a bike. Until I saw the contract I would not be so sure.

Anyway, it doesn't remove the points that the managing agents/landlord instructed the OP to store their bike in an unsuitable location.

sequence

Why would you listen to the management ? Never trust em!