Someone got caught speeding, might have been me.
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Sadly it does look this way.OP - I suspect you've little to lose by standing up for yourself further, as if you roll over they're going to hang a warning of some kind on you anyway, whereas if you stand your ground and win then there's nothing they can immediately do. They MAY choose to find something to hang on you / discipline you for later though...which is where the grievance against your boss will come in very handy, as it'll make it harder for him to do anything later on without looking like he's victimising you.
The risk is the new 'evidence', and how realistic / plausible it is.
- If as Alex suggests they've finally found genuine evidence (i.e. you look at it and go 'fair cop'), then you have every right to see it - that it wasn't presented to you is quite interesting. Only you can then decide what to do...I personally still don't like that threat, but I'm not living your life...
- If however it's something either equivocal or that you believe is 'manufactured', then a court may take that document either way - your prior e-mail (evidence of its own) that your boss said they didn't have anything will most likely counter anything short of compelling evidence, as it'll throw doubt on the vericacy (sp?) of their 'new evidence' and (as above) the court will ask questions such as "why could company XYZ not find this within 28 days?" Especially if combined with the grievance you've raised against your boss for intimidation / threats of what'll happen next.
Hi folks,
Along with a few other long standing members of staff I have thought the the management have wanted to get rid of us 'old school' drivers as we don't fit in with the new depot's way of working.
As for legal expenses insurance, I don't think I do. I've always kept myself relatively clean cut and never seen the need, didn't ever think I'd end up I a situation like this.
I have noted down as much as I can remember, whilst it's fresh in my mind and I'll be seeing the HR chap on Monday. I fear the HR team are very much just management lackies though but I should make it official at least. I will also, via email, ask the manager in question to share the 'new evidence' with me. As I've said all along, if they can prove it was me, I'd stick my hand up to it, I've no problem with that.
Along with a few other long standing members of staff I have thought the the management have wanted to get rid of us 'old school' drivers as we don't fit in with the new depot's way of working.
As for legal expenses insurance, I don't think I do. I've always kept myself relatively clean cut and never seen the need, didn't ever think I'd end up I a situation like this.
I have noted down as much as I can remember, whilst it's fresh in my mind and I'll be seeing the HR chap on Monday. I fear the HR team are very much just management lackies though but I should make it official at least. I will also, via email, ask the manager in question to share the 'new evidence' with me. As I've said all along, if they can prove it was me, I'd stick my hand up to it, I've no problem with that.
NickM450 said:
Hi folks,
Along with a few other long standing members of staff I have thought the the management have wanted to get rid of us 'old school' drivers as we don't fit in with the new depot's way of working.
As for legal expenses insurance, I don't think I do. I've always kept myself relatively clean cut and never seen the need, didn't ever think I'd end up I a situation like this.
I have noted down as much as I can remember, whilst it's fresh in my mind and I'll be seeing the HR chap on Monday. I fear the HR team are very much just management lackies though but I should make it official at least. I will also, via email, ask the manager in question to share the 'new evidence' with me. As I've said all along, if they can prove it was me, I'd stick my hand up to it, I've no problem with that.
Respond with what you know. If you are not convinced that it was you simply say the company have 170 drivers and you can’t know if it was you. Say the company have evidence but are denying its release to you. That way you have replied with what you know.Along with a few other long standing members of staff I have thought the the management have wanted to get rid of us 'old school' drivers as we don't fit in with the new depot's way of working.
As for legal expenses insurance, I don't think I do. I've always kept myself relatively clean cut and never seen the need, didn't ever think I'd end up I a situation like this.
I have noted down as much as I can remember, whilst it's fresh in my mind and I'll be seeing the HR chap on Monday. I fear the HR team are very much just management lackies though but I should make it official at least. I will also, via email, ask the manager in question to share the 'new evidence' with me. As I've said all along, if they can prove it was me, I'd stick my hand up to it, I've no problem with that.
The court or SJP has to be done before 12/01/18 for the speeding.
If you reply to the S172 with all you know you have complied with that.
Then again, if you know it is you driving you haven’t responded with all you know. That may be difficult to prove.
Thanks for the reply and advise guys 
I emailed the manager in question yesterday, very polite and non confrontational etc., I simply asked for the new evidence to be made available to me. I also gently reminded him that he's already, via email, told me that he's said he could never be 100% and that it could have been a 'handful of drivers'.
I've decided to stand my ground, if any evidence proves, without a doubt, that it was me then fair cop, I'll take whatever comes my way.
I'll update with any reply.
Wish me luck, although I feel my time with this company will be coming to an end.
I emailed the manager in question yesterday, very polite and non confrontational etc., I simply asked for the new evidence to be made available to me. I also gently reminded him that he's already, via email, told me that he's said he could never be 100% and that it could have been a 'handful of drivers'.
I've decided to stand my ground, if any evidence proves, without a doubt, that it was me then fair cop, I'll take whatever comes my way.
I'll update with any reply.
Wish me luck, although I feel my time with this company will be coming to an end.
NickM450 said:
Thanks for the reply and advise guys
I emailed the manager in question yesterday, very polite and non confrontational etc., I simply asked for the new evidence to be made available to me. I also gently reminded him that he's already, via email, told me that he's said he could never be 100% and that it could have been a 'handful of drivers'.
I've decided to stand my ground, if any evidence proves, without a doubt, that it was me then fair cop, I'll take whatever comes my way.
I'll update with any reply.
Wish me luck, although I feel my time with this company will be coming to an end.
Good luck!I emailed the manager in question yesterday, very polite and non confrontational etc., I simply asked for the new evidence to be made available to me. I also gently reminded him that he's already, via email, told me that he's said he could never be 100% and that it could have been a 'handful of drivers'.
I've decided to stand my ground, if any evidence proves, without a doubt, that it was me then fair cop, I'll take whatever comes my way.
I'll update with any reply.
Wish me luck, although I feel my time with this company will be coming to an end.
The question is, do you want to work for people who think it's acceptable to try and make somebody a scapegoat rather than admit to their failings?
TooMany2cvs said:
The question is, do you want to work for people who think it's acceptable to try and make somebody a scapegoat rather than admit to their failings?
A lot of companies like that around - morals are very easy to wave around when (in the current economic climate) you don't need to put a roof over your head and food on the table.I agree with the principle, but there's no point in the OP cutting his nose off to spite his face here...
NickM450 said:
Anyway, as it turns out he has managed to glean further evidence that it was me, despite the fact he categorically stated, in an email, that he wasn't 100% sure. I did post the email a few pages back. The letter was returned once again with my name attached and it was up to me if I wanted to risk going to court.
Could you please clarify what this last bit means? Your company responded to their s.172 and named you. Then you responded to your own s.172 and said you didn't know who was driving. Then you spoke to the speed camera people about it and they said they'd go back to the company. Right?Now, unless you get another s.172 letter (addressed to YOU), you have no further obligations as far as I can see--unless and until you get prosecuted for s.172. It sounds to me like the company has now received further correspondence from the speed camera people, but you haven't. All you can do now is sit tight (and begin looking for another job, I fear).
If I can I would stay with the company, as daft as that sounds. I enjoy the job and I'm paid well for what I do.
Correct A.Lex, I responded saying I didn't know who was driving and my company have responded again saying it was me, with new evidence. I've yet to receive anything further.
Correct A.Lex, I responded saying I didn't know who was driving and my company have responded again saying it was me, with new evidence. I've yet to receive anything further.
Respond with things exactly as you know. If you become complicit in your company's shenanigans, you don't know where it will end, and you will have to keep that story going. It is an old saying, but small lies lead to bigger lies to support them. If you become complicit with your company's poor record keeping, then that poor recording keeping may continue. This may bring them a wake up call to their inadequate records - which may extend to other bigger issues, such as taxation, NI payments, health and safety, insurance. Additionally, they will know you, and your co-workers are a soft touch. It may create issues, job-wise, but in my view they seem to have few scruples anyway.
Good luck.
Good luck.
I completely get that you're being put in a really nasty position and want to stay with the company.
I can't see why you manager isn't being completely open with you abiut what they do or don't have insurance term of evidence, i susoect because there isn't any and the only reason why he doesn't want it to escalate is because the whole situation smack of lack of control over the site.
There appears to be no records of who drives what vehicle and when which i'm sure is contrary to company policy/requirment but also who enters/leaves site which again security!
My advice you be to speak to HR, i know you've said they're management puppets and yes that's part of their role; to help the management domwhat the management want/need to do...... BUT the other large and probably more important role is to ensure that their managers do things in a manner not to jeopardise the company, which it sounds as thoug your manager currently is.
He is trying to force you to undertake an illegal act to cover his/the companies shortcomings........ Wouldn't that be grounds for some sort of grievance complaint or even constructive dismissal claim?
I can't see why you manager isn't being completely open with you abiut what they do or don't have insurance term of evidence, i susoect because there isn't any and the only reason why he doesn't want it to escalate is because the whole situation smack of lack of control over the site.
There appears to be no records of who drives what vehicle and when which i'm sure is contrary to company policy/requirment but also who enters/leaves site which again security!
My advice you be to speak to HR, i know you've said they're management puppets and yes that's part of their role; to help the management domwhat the management want/need to do...... BUT the other large and probably more important role is to ensure that their managers do things in a manner not to jeopardise the company, which it sounds as thoug your manager currently is.
He is trying to force you to undertake an illegal act to cover his/the companies shortcomings........ Wouldn't that be grounds for some sort of grievance complaint or even constructive dismissal claim?
Marcellus said:
There appears to be no records of who drives what vehicle and when which i'm sure is contrary to company policy/requirment but also who enters/leaves site which again security!
<nods>Apart from anything else, what happens if a vehicle happens to go walkies with the key?
That's how it was when the depot first opened, things are OK now and paperwork/systems are in place to ensure vehicles are signed out after their initial run of the day. Back when this offence happened that wasn't the case which is why there is no proof, just circumstantial evidence.
and that my friend is your managers motivation...... He knows that if it comes to light within the company that he allowed that to happen to a new operation/depot his career is in trouble.
Therefore, he will do everything to make this go away so thst it doesn't come to light fully.
I'd get HR involved now, if they don't support you then grievance policy route it will have to be investigated by people who until that point have not had any involvement/awareness of the isssue.
Therefore, he will do everything to make this go away so thst it doesn't come to light fully.
I'd get HR involved now, if they don't support you then grievance policy route it will have to be investigated by people who until that point have not had any involvement/awareness of the isssue.
NickM450 said:
Thanks for the reply and advise guys
I emailed the manager in question yesterday, very polite and non confrontational etc., I simply asked for the new evidence to be made available to me. I also gently reminded him that he's already, via email, told me that he's said he could never be 100% and that it could have been a 'handful of drivers'.
I've decided to stand my ground, if any evidence proves, without a doubt, that it was me then fair cop, I'll take whatever comes my way.
I'll update with any reply.
Wish me luck, although I feel my time with this company will be coming to an end.
I know it’s easy for me to say but good on you. Best of luck. I emailed the manager in question yesterday, very polite and non confrontational etc., I simply asked for the new evidence to be made available to me. I also gently reminded him that he's already, via email, told me that he's said he could never be 100% and that it could have been a 'handful of drivers'.
I've decided to stand my ground, if any evidence proves, without a doubt, that it was me then fair cop, I'll take whatever comes my way.
I'll update with any reply.
Wish me luck, although I feel my time with this company will be coming to an end.
I have to say that this is the most OTT result to a £100 fine that I’ve ever seen. Sure everyone can scream PCoJ at the top of their voice, but the OP knows whether he was driving or not. If not, then fair enough but don’t go to war with your employers your mortgage, food, kids depend on a wage. If he was driving then cough up £100 and three points means bugger all.
I really struggle with the obsession with principles at all costs. Reminds me of the biker with the headstone “I was in the right” as his epitaph
I really struggle with the obsession with principles at all costs. Reminds me of the biker with the headstone “I was in the right” as his epitaph
Antony Moxey said:
You obviously haven’t read the OP at all, unless you’re accusing him of being a liar.
I have read it and I’ve watched the thread for quite a while. I’ve also read how he likes working there, but has recently decided that it’s time for him to leave purely down to this. I think that principles are great but when they start to risk you and yours security then it’s time to get a grip on reality.
Gavia said:
Antony Moxey said:
You obviously haven’t read the OP at all, unless you’re accusing him of being a liar.
I have read it and I’ve watched the thread for quite a while. I’ve also read how he likes working there, but has recently decided that it’s time for him to leave purely down to this. I think that principles are great but when they start to risk you and yours security then it’s time to get a grip on reality.
a) they have you under their thumb in the future (do you believe they will be forever grateful?)
b) it may well come back again to bite with regards slack record-keeping, and guess who the company will point to?
This is a classic situation of a 'scapegoat'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff