Scratch on colleagues car
Discussion
It's entirely possible the damage is a result of someone squeezing past the car with a bag etc, and it's just not as bad as it's being described. The deep scratch along the to entire length of the car could really be a mild scratch just in the clearcoat on a couple of panels and an owner who really notices such things more than normal (though perhaps that would be at odds with the time frames involved here).
As with everything else, no real way to tell, so I'd say just take the OP's question at face value and answer it. If he's telling porkies, it won't help him much.
As with everything else, no real way to tell, so I'd say just take the OP's question at face value and answer it. If he's telling porkies, it won't help him much.
Car-Matt said:
La Liga said:
The level of length you've described infers the person who has caused it would clearly know they'd caused it. It makes the whole, 'If the CCTV shows me squeezing past' / lack of memory angles sound questionable.
It comes across as if you're wanting to know what information they have before you decide which approach to take.
That may not be the case, but a lack of decisiveness isn't good in situations like this. If you haven't done it you haven't done it. Be clear and firm.
You can make a 'subject access request' to see the CCTV. Google it to find out more.
If one employee has allegedly damaged another's car whilst commuting (parking before / after work), could that fall within the scope of potential internal misconduct?
Yes, but you'd need evidence to take it furtherIt comes across as if you're wanting to know what information they have before you decide which approach to take.
That may not be the case, but a lack of decisiveness isn't good in situations like this. If you haven't done it you haven't done it. Be clear and firm.
You can make a 'subject access request' to see the CCTV. Google it to find out more.
surveyor_101 said:
pavarotti1980 said:
Thats what his insurance company will pay for. I still think he is chancing it given the information you have been given in the hope someone else will suck up the cost
The company should not be involved as its happened in a public carpark. I find it bizzare they are even talking to you about it, he parked at his own risk and the CCTV should go to the police to be dealt with.When I say 'internal misconduct', that encompasses the investigatory stage, which is where this appears to currently be.
graylag said:
pavarotti1980 said:
So not treating someone with respect (allegedly keying someones key with no evidence) is sufficient to bring disciplinary proceedings
Are being deliberately dense? I specifically stated that I’m working on the basis that the video evidence is sufficiently clear. If it’s not then there’s probably no case. designforlife said:
Sounds like they are trying to get shot of you.
Assuming you didn't scratch matey's car, this sounds like a ploy to get you moved on.
This.Assuming you didn't scratch matey's car, this sounds like a ploy to get you moved on.
4 months later they come to you? Presumably the car has been fixed so there's no actual evidence of the damage anymore?
More like, you've been off for 2 months and it's been decided they don't want you anymore. No offence, but your response sounds a little soft so they may see you as an easy target for an action like this. You're not necessarily soft, probably just a nice person, but d
heads will take advantage of this.Make a complaint of harassment directly to HR, and you could directly suggest that you suspect following your health-related leave they're trying to get rid of you. If you've been employed for less than 2 years you can be let go for almost any reason, but not health-related leave. It might at least make them think twice before targeting you again (although don't expect a promotion anytime soon!).
If you're accused again immediately make a firm rebuttal disputing the accusation. No weak, "I'm not sure" crap, just a firm "No, definitely not me".
Nonetheless, I'd brush up your CV. It sounds like a s
tty company.Ed/L152 said:
This.
4 months later they come to you? Presumably the car has been fixed so there's no actual evidence of the damage anymore?
More like, you've been off for 2 months and it's been decided they don't want you anymore. No offence, but your response sounds a little soft so they may see you as an easy target for an action like this. You're not necessarily soft, probably just a nice person, but dheads will take advantage of this.
Make a complaint of harassment directly to HR, and you could directly suggest that you suspect following your health-related leave they're trying to get rid of you. If you've been employed for less than 2 years you can be let go for almost any reason, but not health-related leave. It might at least make them think twice before targeting you again (although don't expect a promotion anytime soon!).
If you're accused again immediately make a firm rebuttal disputing the accusation. No weak, "I'm not sure" crap, just a firm "No, definitely not me".
Nonetheless, I'd brush up your CV. It sounds like a stty company.
He is on paternity/parental leave not ill though 4 months later they come to you? Presumably the car has been fixed so there's no actual evidence of the damage anymore?
More like, you've been off for 2 months and it's been decided they don't want you anymore. No offence, but your response sounds a little soft so they may see you as an easy target for an action like this. You're not necessarily soft, probably just a nice person, but d
heads will take advantage of this.Make a complaint of harassment directly to HR, and you could directly suggest that you suspect following your health-related leave they're trying to get rid of you. If you've been employed for less than 2 years you can be let go for almost any reason, but not health-related leave. It might at least make them think twice before targeting you again (although don't expect a promotion anytime soon!).
If you're accused again immediately make a firm rebuttal disputing the accusation. No weak, "I'm not sure" crap, just a firm "No, definitely not me".
Nonetheless, I'd brush up your CV. It sounds like a s
tty company.surveyor_101 said:
Car-Matt said:
Irrelevant
They have no proof the accused did it and its off site can't see what the company can do. Its a he said she said!I am merely commenting that the fact it is off company property is irrelevant in an internal company disciplinary scenario should one arise........
Car-Matt said:
I know that and I agree as already stated that without any evidence clearly showing the OP scratching the car then its a no go for disciplinary.
I am merely commenting that the fact it is off company property is irrelevant in an internal company disciplinary scenario should one arise........
If it was 4 months ago and now the OP is on parental leave sounds like more of excuse to get rid of the guy or pressure him back off leave.I am merely commenting that the fact it is off company property is irrelevant in an internal company disciplinary scenario should one arise........
It’s my experience that employers are generally terrified of women with kids claiming discrimination and so flexible working and parental leave terms always seem to be granted. Men on the other hand are still treated very differently by many firms.
My last company, had several women one of whom joined and feel pregnant within 6 months. These women could dictate their working terms no problem. The aforementioned lady was a similar manager level to me and had less service. I originally agreed working from home at interview stage but the MD was less and less keen 2 years in and started to deny requests or ignore them.
I finally spoke to the executive manager who was the md and other board directors guy who felt either stuff they couldn’t be bothered and suggested I would make a formal case for flexible working.
Next thing I know I get a new guy on my department who splits my word load and 2-3 months later they call me into a meeting at 3 hours notice to discuss my performance. Is speak to another director who has my back and he basically tells me off the record they don’t like me asking to work for home and the MD felt I backed him into a corner
So I negotiated a deal to leave and I resigned. They gave me a glowing reference,
pavarotti1980 said:
He is on paternity/parental leave not ill though
How long is this leave?Why only come after you 4 months later while your away from work?
If the OP does have under 2 years service not much he can do as the company know unless they are discriminating against a protected characteristic, they can boot you.
I would tell them you are very unhappy with the accusation without evidence and you know you did not do it.
No point in staying somewhere your not wanted.
Tell them you feel you have been victimised due to your parental leave.
Try and get 3-6 months pay in lieu and leave.
I am just over 2 years in company.
Also found out from another source that the police weren’t interested and the guy was reluctant to go through his insurance as he has a few claims going on.
Having done other research it does appear that really my company should not be involved at all. This part is worrying me massively more than being accused of a scratch.
Also found out from another source that the police weren’t interested and the guy was reluctant to go through his insurance as he has a few claims going on.
Having done other research it does appear that really my company should not be involved at all. This part is worrying me massively more than being accused of a scratch.
Could getting Lawyered up result in the OP's name being cleared and a better severance deal?
I've some experience of workplace bullies that like to make malicious allegations. It's worth standing up to them to see how they react.
If you can't afford a solicitor can the Citizens Advice Bureau help?
I've some experience of workplace bullies that like to make malicious allegations. It's worth standing up to them to see how they react.
If you can't afford a solicitor can the Citizens Advice Bureau help?
The fact that your car may have been the next car to leave a car park and that the perpetrator was otherwise unrecognisable, is at very best circumstantial 'evidence' and there is absolutely no proof that the otherwise unidentifable person depicted in the CCTV is you. OK, you may have been in the car park at the time but it's a huge assumption to believe that the first person to leave a busy car park after a crime has been committed is automatically the perpetrator! Quite ridiculous. Furthermore I'm not sure that it would be in any way admissible, if you are indeed being formally charged with the damage, to not allow you a copy of the 'incriminating' footage to enable you to answer those charges, let alone defend yourself against them.
One can only assume they're trying to pin it on you because they're annoyed at you for something else and they clumsily think this is going to be an effective tool for constructive dismissal?
One can only assume they're trying to pin it on you because they're annoyed at you for something else and they clumsily think this is going to be an effective tool for constructive dismissal?
Edited by vsonix on Thursday 13th December 19:31
What if in the CCTV footage, the supposed perp is wearing a RED jacket
but the accused doesn't even own a RED jacket.
That would solve things immediately.
In the CCTV footage is it clear the actions of the alleged perp are commensurate with the size and type of damage, across the several panels where the damage is alleged to occur, or is the footage of an innocent Fourth Party?
Can the accuser back up his assertions that the car wasn't damaged BEFORE entering the car park?
I'm sorry but you can't base a case round footage you won't let anyone, least of all the accused, see.
100% bullcrap, either the OP is spinning a yarn,
but the accused doesn't even own a RED jacket.
That would solve things immediately.
In the CCTV footage is it clear the actions of the alleged perp are commensurate with the size and type of damage, across the several panels where the damage is alleged to occur, or is the footage of an innocent Fourth Party?
Can the accuser back up his assertions that the car wasn't damaged BEFORE entering the car park?
I'm sorry but you can't base a case round footage you won't let anyone, least of all the accused, see.
100% bullcrap, either the OP is spinning a yarn,
If it was me in your position and i genuinely couldn't remember scratching a car by accident then i wouldn't be volunteering to do anything.
The owner would need to take you to a small claims court and show on the balance of probabilities that it was you in the video and you were being negligent or deliberately damaged it.
For them to be able to do so, they would need your full name and address to issue court proceedings. However if you don't volunteer that information to them, they are unlikely to be able to go down that avenue. Your insurance company wouldn't provide your personal details to the owner if they contacted them as it's not an issue for your car insurance to be dealing with as you weren't in your car and i would suggest that your work providing the owner your address details is likely to be breaking some time of regulation or law around personal information.
But i'm not a legal expert, so i may be wrong or naive
The owner would need to take you to a small claims court and show on the balance of probabilities that it was you in the video and you were being negligent or deliberately damaged it.
For them to be able to do so, they would need your full name and address to issue court proceedings. However if you don't volunteer that information to them, they are unlikely to be able to go down that avenue. Your insurance company wouldn't provide your personal details to the owner if they contacted them as it's not an issue for your car insurance to be dealing with as you weren't in your car and i would suggest that your work providing the owner your address details is likely to be breaking some time of regulation or law around personal information.
But i'm not a legal expert, so i may be wrong or naive
Retroman said:
If it was me in your position and i genuinely couldn't remember scratching a car by accident then i wouldn't be volunteering to do anything.
The owner would need to take you to a small claims court and show on the balance of probabilities that it was you in the video and you were being negligent or deliberately damaged it.
For them to be able to do so, they would need your full name and address to issue court proceedings. However if you don't volunteer that information to them, they are unlikely to be able to go down that avenue. Your insurance company wouldn't provide your personal details to the owner if they contacted them as it's not an issue for your car insurance to be dealing with as you weren't in your car and i would suggest that your work providing the owner your address details is likely to be breaking some time of regulation or law around personal information.
But i'm not a legal expert, so i may be wrong or naive
Its really not very hard to find someones address if you know their name, unless they have spent a lifetime trying to go under the radar.The owner would need to take you to a small claims court and show on the balance of probabilities that it was you in the video and you were being negligent or deliberately damaged it.
For them to be able to do so, they would need your full name and address to issue court proceedings. However if you don't volunteer that information to them, they are unlikely to be able to go down that avenue. Your insurance company wouldn't provide your personal details to the owner if they contacted them as it's not an issue for your car insurance to be dealing with as you weren't in your car and i would suggest that your work providing the owner your address details is likely to be breaking some time of regulation or law around personal information.
But i'm not a legal expert, so i may be wrong or naive
Is it really possible to get that info from the people running a public car park? Ie the CCTV footage plus the ANPR records?
If you can't see the footage, how can the company see it? They certainly don't have a valid interest in the matter.
That looks like some serious investigation to me. Sounds like some nonsense going on somewhere.
Bert
If you can't see the footage, how can the company see it? They certainly don't have a valid interest in the matter.
That looks like some serious investigation to me. Sounds like some nonsense going on somewhere.
Bert
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff