Someone got caught speeding, might have been me.

[Gavia]

NickM450 said:

Some great responses there, thank you. I am already working on a timeline with everything I know/believe included.

To answer Glavia, I have 3 points that I received in January 2015 and I last attended a course in 2013 I believe. As for the speed, I may well have that wrong, could have been 66 in a 50, I'd have to take a look at the letter I have at home.

All through this situation, I've always maintained that of they can provide sufficient evidence to prove it was me then I would take the fine etc. bit to tgisnpoint all they've done is say that it COULD be me AS WELL AS several others. What evidence they have now I don't know, although the HR chap did mention yesterday that 'they've narrowed it down'.

All I've done is what I thought was right, in the role I have now, it has been drummed in to us that we are being watched, evaluated and have to stay whiter than white, so I've tried to do just that.

At what point does your points tally become a disciplinary offence as laid out in your contract?

Why didn’t you just take the SAC that would undoubtedly be offered, instead of getting into all of this. Cue lots of people screaming PCoJ and other irrelevances. You’ve completely buggered your life up over this at the wrong time of year. And no, he wouldn’t be prosecuted for PCoJ despite what the pedants amd Hardy Boys on here will have you believe.

[Gavia]

Alfa numeric said:

Gavia said:

Again, all this is wonderful investigative work and opinion, but it all ignores one critical fact. The company do not have to prove to the OP that it was him driving. The OP would like them to, but they don’t have to. All they have to do is state who they know was driving at the time. Before younall now jump on me for the word “know” they now have evidence that they’ve spent hours accruing.

They say they have evidence it was him. He's consistently said that he doesn't think it was him but if there is proof it was he'll admit it.

Gavia said:

They will name the OP. The OP somehow has to prove it wasn’t him, when he knows it could have been. I’m going to stick my neck out and get flamed for this, but I think the OP knows he was driving.

He doesn't have to prove it wasn't him, he just has to show, as the company themselves has said, that it could have been one of a number of people. Jeremy Clarkson was acquitted for the same reason.

So here’s the situation as it stands now. He knows his company have said they have proof it was him driving. How does that affect his knowledge? Will he now admit it?

And once again, his company do not have to show him that evidence. They have to show it to the court if they ask, which they may well do if the OP persists in denying it was him when the company continue to say it was.

[cossy400]

Gavia said:

Alfa numeric said:

Gavia said:

Again, all this is wonderful investigative work and opinion, but it all ignores one critical fact. The company do not have to prove to the OP that it was him driving. The OP would like them to, but they don’t have to. All they have to do is state who they know was driving at the time. Before younall now jump on me for the word “know” they now have evidence that they’ve spent hours accruing.

They say they have evidence it was him. He's consistently said that he doesn't think it was him but if there is proof it was he'll admit it.

Gavia said:

They will name the OP. The OP somehow has to prove it wasn’t him, when he knows it could have been. I’m going to stick my neck out and get flamed for this, but I think the OP knows he was driving.

He doesn't have to prove it wasn't him, he just has to show, as the company themselves has said, that it could have been one of a number of people. Jeremy Clarkson was acquitted for the same reason.

So here’s the situation as it stands now. He knows his company have said they have proof it was him driving. How does that affect his knowledge? Will he now admit it?

And once again, his company do not have to show him that evidence. They have to show it to the court if they ask, which they may well do if the OP persists in denying it was him when the company continue to say it was.

Bit late to the party, but even so "IF" they have this info on the OP and as hes said many times in the thread, they show him the evidence he ll hold his hands up to it.

Sounds to me like they are calling his bluff.

Why else would they keep wind holding the "evidence"?

And if ive read it all right hes got emails from the manager saying hes "unsure" etc etc

You d have to be pretty thick in management skills to know that if this goes bad its going to fall at the managers door, which again brings me to my original point why not just show the OP?

[Steve H]

Gavia said:

So here’s the situation as it stands now. He knows his company have said they have proof it was him driving. How does that affect his knowledge? Will he now admit it?

And once again, his company do not have to show him that evidence. They have to show it to the court if they ask, which they may well do if the OP persists in denying it was him when the company continue to say it was.

Why would they be so difficult about it?

At some stage the OP would get to see the evidence that he was driving, asking for it now isn't different to asking for a photo to help ID the driver. The company has apparently gone to this effort to avoid the trouble that could come their way for not keeping proper records and yet they won't put this to bed by showing the OP the clear proof that he was the driver.

There is a most obvious reason for this..........

[Durzel]

This has all the makings of a pyrrhic victory.

[woodyTVR]

Gavia said:

So here’s the situation as it stands now. He knows his company have said they have proof it was him driving. How does that affect his knowledge? Will he now admit it?

And once again, his company do not have to show him that evidence. They have to show it to the court if they ask, which they may well do if the OP persists in denying it was him when the company continue to say it was.

They don't have to but it'd be a whole lot simpler and more grown up if they did. Having read all the way though the OPs posts, I'd say the manager know he's fked up and is desperately trying to cover his own arse for the poor record keeping. What's his alternative, say he doesn't know who was driving and get into trouble himself for poor record keeping?

I'm sure deep down the manager knows it was the OP driving or at least believes he's satisfied himself it was the OP and in his mind thinks the OP is just trying to get off the hook rather than trying to confirm it was actually him driving. By doing this the OP is putting the manager at risk hence the anger.

The HR manager won't be much help and I fear the OP has marked his cards - it's not right but that's how the situation looks.

I think the only real way out of this for the OP is to go above the Manager and land the Manager in it for not record keeping. The danger is that initial lack of recording keeping may have been forced from above in a rush to set up the depot.

[Gavia]

Steve H said:

Why would they be so difficult about it?

At some stage the OP would get to see the evidence that he was driving, asking for it now isn't different to asking for a photo to help ID the driver. The company has apparently gone to this effort to avoid the trouble that could come their way for not keeping proper records and yet they won't put this to bed by showing the OP the clear proof that he was the driver.

There is a most obvious reason for this..........

You could ask why the OP is making it so difficult too and there is an equally obvious reason for this.

I’m not sure how many times I have to say this, but let’s do it agin formthe umpteenth time.

HIS EMPLOYERS DO NOT HAVE TO SHOW HIM THE PROOF THAT IT WAS HIM DRIVING. their obligation is to the court if needed and they have already said they will do that. The OP is the one demanding the proof that he has no automatic right to see.

Who is being awkward when you consider that and who is digging a great big hole for himself? He now has the knowledge that there’s is proof that he was driving. If he sends back a subsequent s172 saying “not me” is he fulfilling his obligations?

Durzel said:

This has all the makings of a pyrrhic victory.

Sort of agree, although I’m not convinced he’ll get the victory part either.

[Alfa numeric]

Gavia said:

So here’s the situation as it stands now. He knows his company have said they have proof it was him driving. How does that affect his knowledge? Will he now admit it?

And once again, his company do not have to show him that evidence. They have to show it to the court if they ask, which they may well do if the OP persists in denying it was him when the company continue to say it was.

They say it was him, he doesn't think it was but is prepared to accept it if they can show it was him. They haven't shown him the proof they say they have. He doesn't seem to be trying to wriggle out of a situation where he's been caught bang to rights. He seems to be trying to ascertain whether he was the driver because he has doubts.

No-one is arguing that the company has to show him the proof. It would just be a great deal easier if they did it's not as if they're legally barred from doing so. If I was the OP I'd be doing the same thing.

[Gavia]

Alfa numeric said:

They say it was him, he doesn't think it was but is prepared to accept it if they can show it was him. They haven't shown him the proof they say they have. He doesn't seem to be trying to wriggle out of a situation where he's been caught bang to rights. He seems to be trying to ascertain whether he was the driver because he has doubts.

No-one is arguing that the company has to show him the proof. It would just be a great deal easier if they did it's not as if they're legally barred from doing so. If I was the OP I'd be doing the same thing.

Why should they? The OP has demonstrated on this thread that he’s probably not their employee of the month with some of his opinions of them. He’s making it awkward and the Ops Manager could well feel that his goodwill has been abused.

The Ops Manager has now gone even further and done a thorough investigation which proves it was the OP driving. Now you could argue that he wouldn’t had to do this if there were detailed procedures in place. However, having those procedures isn’t defined as to exactly how to gather, just the ability to identify drivers, which the company can do and has done. The detailed process may well be best practice, but it’s not the requirement.

Anyway,we can gomround and round in circles on this all day, the more important question is

If the OP now knows the company has evidence that he was the driver, what are his responsibilities if he gets a new S172?

[mjb1]

Gavia said:

So here’s the situation as it stands now. He knows his company have said they have proof it was him driving. How does that affect his knowledge? Will he now admit it?

And once again, his company do not have to show him that evidence. They have to show it to the court if they ask, which they may well do if the OP persists in denying it was him when the company continue to say it was.

The OP has never denied it was him, just that he (presume genuinely) doesn't know if it was him. I think most drivers would realise straight away at the time if they'd just been picked up by either a mobile or fixed camera? Then it's the nervous wait to see if you get a letter about it. OP has no recollection of barrelling through a fixed camera and seeing flashes in his mirror. So either it wasn't him or his awareness is pretty poor (especially for a professional driver).

It's his manager's actions which look 'odd' in all this. Firstly he's on record saying they don't know for sure who was driving, then he says it was the OP by process of elimination/circumstantial evidence. Now he's saying there is definite evidence that the OP was the driver (but won't show it). How would that look to you, if you had no idea if you were driving that van or not?

It's almost a stalemate at this point. If the police escalate it then the employer will almost certainly get wrapped knuckles for poor/non existent record keeping, maybe worse. OP has repeatedly told them he'll take it on the chin if they can show it was him, and then all the trouble for the manager/employer will probably go away. So in their position, why would they not do that, and not assist the 'culprit' in realising/accepting it? Why be awkward about it, when it's likely to get them in trouble as well?

Hopefully the HR bloke will push a few buttons: "just show him the evidence, make this all go away". Manager is either going to go along with that, or he's going to reply that the evidence is weak or non existent. If the latter, does the HR dude want to be complicit in the bluff/cover up/potential PcoJ?

[Alfa numeric]

Gavia said:

HIS EMPLOYERS DO NOT HAVE TO SHOW HIM THE PROOF THAT IT WAS HIM DRIVING. their obligation is to the court if needed and they have already said they will do that. The OP is the one demanding the proof that he has no automatic right to see.

NO-ONE IS ARGUING THIS FACT. The OP doesn't have a right to see it, but he has asked the company to see it as he doesn't think he was driving the van. Just because the company doesn't have a legal obligation to show him the proof it doesn't mean they can't show him.

Gavia said:

Who is being awkward when you consider that and who is digging a great big hole for himself? He now has the knowledge that there’s is proof that he was driving. If he sends back a subsequent s172 saying “not me” is he fulfilling his obligations?

Yes he is- if he doesn't think it was him and hasn't seen any proof that it was then why would he reply in any other way? If the police are satisfied it's him after the company supplies the proof they claim they have then he can plead guilty, as he's consistently said he would.

[Gavia]

Alfa numeric said:

Gavia said:

HIS EMPLOYERS DO NOT HAVE TO SHOW HIM THE PROOF THAT IT WAS HIM DRIVING. their obligation is to the court if needed and they have already said they will do that. The OP is the one demanding the proof that he has no automatic right to see.

NO-ONE IS ARGUING THIS FACT. The OP doesn't have a right to see it, but he has asked the company to see it as he doesn't think he was driving the van. Just because the company doesn't have a legal obligation to show him the proof it doesn't mean they can't show him.

Gavia said:

Who is being awkward when you consider that and who is digging a great big hole for himself? He now has the knowledge that there’s is proof that he was driving. If he sends back a subsequent s172 saying “not me” is he fulfilling his obligations?

Yes he is- if he doesn't think it was him and hasn't seen any proof that it was then why would he reply in any other way? If the police are satisfied it's him after the company supplies the proof they claim they have then he can plead guilty, as he's consistently said he would.

They might not want to show him am due they are well within their rights not to. The OP hanging on this as his get out jail free card is not a good idea.

Here’s one for you. If you think you might have done something, but aren’t completely sure, but someone else tells you that you did it, is it likely that you did it? Would it be appropriate for you to completely deny to a court that you did it? You might not want to admit to it, admitting to it might lead to subsequent unpleasant action, but could you truthfully deny it?

[AndyDubbya]

Gavia said:

<snip>

If the OP now knows the company has evidence that he was the driver, what are his responsibilities if he gets a new S172?

That's just it, he doesn't know. It's what they're telling him, sure, but he doesn't know.

[Gavia]

AndyDubbya said:

Gavia said:

<snip>

If the OP now knows the company has evidence that he was the driver, what are his responsibilities if he gets a new S172?

That's just it, he doesn't know. It's what they're telling him, sure, but he doesn't know.

I’m not going to change anyone’s mind, but I’m trying to temper the approach that others are championing. Someone posted a bit ago about a Pyrrhic victory, I think that that’s the best the OP can hope for now.

I’ll leave you all to it now.

[timetex]

Gavia said:

Here’s one for you. If you think you might have done something, but aren’t completely sure, but someone else tells you that you did it, is it likely that you did it? Would it be appropriate for you to completely deny to a court that you did it? You might not want to admit to it, admitting to it might lead to subsequent unpleasant action, but could you truthfully deny it?

Someone completely independent tells me that I did it? Sure, I'd take that into account.

Someone with a horse in the race, who may have a compelling reason for me admitting that I did it tells me that I did it? No, I'd take that with a pinch of salt to be honest.

The manager is on the hook for the poor record keeping. Him telling the OP that it is 'definitely him' after telling him previously 'we're not sure' doesn't cut the mustard.

[Alfa numeric]

Gavia said:

Here’s one for you. If you think you might have done something, but aren’t completely sure, but someone else tells you that you did it, is it likely that you did it? Would it be appropriate for you to completely deny to a court that you did it? You might not want to admit to it, admitting to it might lead to subsequent unpleasant action, but could you truthfully deny it?

He's not though is he? It's a van that the company admits could have been driven by other people, on a route that he sometimes drives but isn't sure he drove that day. He also clocked off at a time that would be difficult (but not impossible) to achieve had he been driving the van when the photo was taken. He's never said it definitely wasn't him, he's just discharging his responsibilities to the court in trying to ascertain the driver. As it stands he's not seen any proof that it was him, he's just been told that there is proof. If you believe that in the balance of probabilities you weren't driving then why would you admit it?

[Gavia]

timetex said:

Someone completely independent tells me that I did it? Sure, I'd take that into account.

Someone with a horse in the race, who may have a compelling reason for me admitting that I did it tells me that I did it? No, I'd take that with a pinch of salt to be honest.

The manager is on the hook for the poor record keeping. Him telling the OP that it is 'definitely him' after telling him previously 'we're not sure' doesn't cut the mustard.

He’s not on the hook. If he has a record, no matter how poor them that’s good enough. If he has the subsequent detailed evidence, the. That’s definitely good enough. There is no compulsion in law on a company to keep massively detailed records of who drives what and when on all vehicles. It may well be best practice, but it’s not legislated.

Here’s an example. I used to have a company car. That car was insured for any employee and their spouses. My wife used to drive the car a lot, as did I. I did not have to record every journey, nor did my employers. However, it was expected that I should know who was driving it. Best practice should’ve meant that I kept records, but I didn’t. However, when my wife got zapped we worked out who it was and that was good enough. I didn’t lose my job, nor did the Fleet Manager.

[Jonno02]

Gavia said:

HIS EMPLOYERS DO NOT HAVE TO SHOW HIM THE PROOF THAT IT WAS HIM DRIVING

They've moaned about the man hours to find the evidence. It's going to take more man hours if the OP disputes it.

It's in their best interest, if they DO have evidence, to show him. I'm not sure if you're just trolling now. Innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until "somebody that's going to be in a whole lot of trouble says they have evidence you did something to get them off the hook, so you better admit it without seeing this proof!"

The OP has said he'll take it on the chin if they just show him the proof. It's just mental that they won't to make it go away.

Edited by Jonno02 on Wednesday 20th December 14:32

[Chester draws]

Nick, what policy / procedure is now in place for drivers using these vans?

Previously, it seems anyone could just grab the keys and drive off to deliver / collect something as required.

What do you now need to do before driving off? Is there a logbook? Vehicle damage / fluids check sheet? Driver signing in / out sheet?

If there is now a system showing which driver is in which van at any time, the date at which this new record keeping started will be quite obvious, making it quite easy to show that there weren't any records kept on (or before) the date in question.

[Gavia]

Jonno02 said:

They've moaned about the man hours to find the evidence. It's going to take more man hours if the OP disputes it.

It's in their best interest, if they DO have evidence, to show him. I'm not sure if you're just trolling now. Innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until "somebody that's going to be in a whole lot of trouble says they have evidence you did something to get them off the hook, so you better admit it without seeing this proof!"

The OP has said he'll take it on the chin if they just show him the proof. It's just mental that they won't to make it go away.

Edited by Jonno02 on Wednesday 20th December 14:32

I’m not trolling and am sick of people suggesting I am just because I’m trying to give a different view.

Everything you’ve said is all fine and dandy, but the employer is doing nothing wrong by not showing him their evidence. The OP has already hinted at not being an ideal employee why should the employer make it easy for him? This could quite easily be a serious matter under his employment contract and the employer may be looking at this as such and complying with their legal requirements on the speeding matter only. They may then have further action to take around his employment and don’t want to compromise that. It therefore may well not be “in their best interests”.

My opinion is trying to that the OP to see that he might end up losing on all counts. The majority on here seem to act as if he’ll be walking away Scot free having taken down the management too. That is extremely unlikely.