Scratch on colleagues car
Discussion
The CCTV may show OP walking past the car but it won't prove that the scratch wasn't there before.
Sorry if this has already been said but was it on the drivers side or passenger? If the latter then there's a fairly strong argument it could have happened any time and not been noticed.
Sorry if this has already been said but was it on the drivers side or passenger? If the latter then there's a fairly strong argument it could have happened any time and not been noticed.
Just a simple ‘sorry your car is scratched, but it has nothing to do with me’ to colleague, and ‘what has this got to do with work?’ to the boss, is what they would be getting from me.
As has been said, to cause anything other than a light, short surface scratch, would have been felt as someone rubbed past with a bag or a zip.
As has been said, to cause anything other than a light, short surface scratch, would have been felt as someone rubbed past with a bag or a zip.
Pica-Pica said:
Just a simple ‘sorry your car is scratched, but it has nothing to do with me’ to colleague, and ‘what has this got to do with work?’ to the boss, is what they would be getting from me.
As has been said, to cause anything other than a light, short surface scratch, would have been felt as someone rubbed past with a bag or a zip.
That would be my take but certainly, after Xmas I would be looking for a new job as no point in staying somewhere your not wanted,As has been said, to cause anything other than a light, short surface scratch, would have been felt as someone rubbed past with a bag or a zip.
Some on here argue as they both work for the same firm they get involved in private carpark shenanigans!
Personally, I can't see why they would as its totally outside of work in my mind.
They have zero proof it happened months ago. Not sure if its a witch hunt by the car owner with an axe to grind. Or he just wants someone to pay the bill or the firm just want rid of the OP for some reason.
Say I consulted a solicitor and the police who say there is no case or proof who was involved and they won't take action.
My solicitor is concerned it may be constructive dismissal whatever that is!
Edited by surveyor_101 on Friday 14th December 16:33
surveyor_101 said:
Pica-Pica said:
Just a simple ‘sorry your car is scratched, but it has nothing to do with me’ to colleague, and ‘what has this got to do with work?’ to the boss, is what they would be getting from me.
As has been said, to cause anything other than a light, short surface scratch, would have been felt as someone rubbed past with a bag or a zip.
That would be my take but certainly, after Xmas I would be looking for a new job as no point in staying somewhere your not wanted,As has been said, to cause anything other than a light, short surface scratch, would have been felt as someone rubbed past with a bag or a zip.
Some on here argue as they both work for the same firm they get involved in private carpark shenanigans!
Personally, I can't see why they would as its totally outside of work in my mind.
They have zero proof it happened months ago. Not sure if its a witch hunt by the car owner with an axe to grind. Or he just wants someone to pay the bill or the firm just want rid of the OP for some reason.
Say I consulted a solicitor and the police who say there is no case or proof who was involved and they won't take action.
My solicitor is concerned it may be constructive dismissal whatever that is!
Edited by surveyor_101 on Friday 14th December 16:33
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder because you’ve had a bad experience about working from home. This isn’t remotely the same at the moment unless there is further disclosure from the OP.
Car-Matt said:
I am 100% correct that IF the OP did deliberately scratch the car of a colleague outside of work property and there was good evidence or it happened on the balance of probabilities then he is still open to internal disciplinary, it’s a fact.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder because you’ve had a bad experience about working from home. This isn’t remotely the same at the moment unless there is further disclosure from the OP.
After our debate a couple of days ago, I think we’re now in total agreement. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder because you’ve had a bad experience about working from home. This isn’t remotely the same at the moment unless there is further disclosure from the OP.
Aiminghigh123 said:
Ok this thread has gone crazy. I have had a response from the guy and well our previous manager has not helped this situation.
Previous manager was handling this and has since left.
The guy told me he told the police, our manager and the car park security his car was damaged. He was told by the previous manager they have multiple cameras that show who did it. I have been told there is only 1 camera it wasn’t clear who it was and my car was leaving closest to the time of when they think the incident happened.
He also claims that he noticed scratches on returning to his car after work when it was day light.
I will happily sit down and review the cctv if it shows me “squeezing” between his car and someone else’s fair enough. If it can’t show that and we go with the fact someone walked past the car and scratched it I don’t feel that’s fair when as has been said it could have been a neighbour of his, early morning poor lighting he might not of seen it before going to work.
Another 2 points he has says he was told a few months ago it was me? If someone told me I would personally go and speak to the person face to face. I was at work for 2 months after the incident.
Also says it requires a full respray on that side so is going to cost few thousand.
You said it yourself - the whole accusation is based on when they THINK that the damage happened. If they have no CCTV showing or other proof the damage wasn't there at Time A but was at Time C and you can be clearly seen somewhere in between at Time B adjacent to the car the its a non starter. If the police are not interested in this then nor should the company. I would speak to union or CAB and suggest a stern letter asking them to cease any of this harassment or make it formal. Previous manager was handling this and has since left.
The guy told me he told the police, our manager and the car park security his car was damaged. He was told by the previous manager they have multiple cameras that show who did it. I have been told there is only 1 camera it wasn’t clear who it was and my car was leaving closest to the time of when they think the incident happened.
He also claims that he noticed scratches on returning to his car after work when it was day light.
I will happily sit down and review the cctv if it shows me “squeezing” between his car and someone else’s fair enough. If it can’t show that and we go with the fact someone walked past the car and scratched it I don’t feel that’s fair when as has been said it could have been a neighbour of his, early morning poor lighting he might not of seen it before going to work.
Another 2 points he has says he was told a few months ago it was me? If someone told me I would personally go and speak to the person face to face. I was at work for 2 months after the incident.
Also says it requires a full respray on that side so is going to cost few thousand.
The owner of the BMW, as you say has had a few claims before? Maybe he is chancing it so he doesn't have to claim again on his insurance?
Tomo1971 said:
You said it yourself - the whole accusation is based on when they THINK that the damage happened. If they have no CCTV showing or other proof the damage wasn't there at Time A but was at Time C and you can be clearly seen somewhere in between at Time B adjacent to the car the its a non starter. If the police are not interested in this then nor should the company. I would speak to union or CAB and suggest a stern letter asking them to cease any of this harassment or make it formal.
The owner of the BMW, as you say has had a few claims before? Maybe he is chancing it so he doesn't have to claim again on his insurance?
Why are people confusing a criminal matter involving the police with an employment issue? Do you think the police would be interested that you’ve been off sick for the nth time and are now facing a disciplinary?The owner of the BMW, as you say has had a few claims before? Maybe he is chancing it so he doesn't have to claim again on his insurance?
The police would be chasing something that needs proving beyond reasonable doubt. An employer in a disciplinary wouldn't even need balance of probabilities, just that they acted reasonably.
Time lag seems odd and they should absolutely provide the video evidence. If the OP is on it he has the right to see it even if only as a data subject.
Time lag seems odd and they should absolutely provide the video evidence. If the OP is on it he has the right to see it even if only as a data subject.
An employer can fairly dismiss for misconduct if the employer has a reasonable belief that misconduct occurred, such belief being based on a reasonable investigation and a fair procedure. One employee deliberately damaging the property of another could be misconduct because such behaviour impacts on trust and confidence at the workplace. The suggestion above that conduct outside the workplace can never be relevant is incorrect.
Breadvan72 said:
An employer can fairly dismiss for misconduct if the employer has a reasonable belief that misconduct occurred, such belief being based on a reasonable investigation and a fair procedure. One employee deliberately damaging the property of another could be misconduct because such behaviour impacts on trust and confidence at the workplace. The suggestion above that conduct outside the workplace can never be relevant is incorrect.
Without showing the OP THE FOOTAGE they used to come to a reasonable assumption that the Op is guilty, seems like any employer can accuse an employee of something and bout them then.surveyor_101 said:
Breadvan72 said:
An employer can fairly dismiss for misconduct if the employer has a reasonable belief that misconduct occurred, such belief being based on a reasonable investigation and a fair procedure. One employee deliberately damaging the property of another could be misconduct because such behaviour impacts on trust and confidence at the workplace. The suggestion above that conduct outside the workplace can never be relevant is incorrect.
Without showing the OP THE FOOTAGE they used to come to a reasonable assumption that the Op is guilty, seems like any employer can accuse an employee of something and bout them then.I’ve slready quoted a link to the EAT guidelines that state the employer needs to have evidence to make its decision, without this the employer would lose an appeal against an unfair tribunal decision....https://www.gov.uk/appeal-employment-appeal-tribunal
Strictly speaking, a claim to an Employment Tribunal is not an appeal, although it is often characterised as such. As correctly noted above, where an employer relied on CCTV evidence but did not show that evidence to the employee, a dismissal based on such evidence would be unfair. The test is always that of what a reasonable employer would do.
Breadvan72 said:
Strictly speaking, a claim to an Employment Tribunal is not an appeal, although it is often characterised as such. As correctly noted above, where an employer relied on CCTV evidence but did not show that evidence to the employee, a dismissal based on such evidence would be unfair. The test is always that of what a reasonable employer would do.
To go back the point I was making earlier though is this likely to be deemed reasonable?The employer goes through a full disciplinary procedure complying with all aspects of their internal process. As part of the evidence they show someone walking past the car where the damage was done, the car isn’t parked on a pedestrian walkway, so someone has to go out of their way to walk past it.
That unidentifiable person is then tracked to a car via CCTV, which then leaves the car park with its reg number clearly visible and it belongs to the employee in the disciplinary. All CCTV is shared during the disciplinary process.
Before everyone goes mental, I’m not saying that this is definitely what happened, I’m giving a scenario.
The OP, though, has failed to answer the question over whether the damaged car was parked on a pedestrian walkway in the car park, or somewhere where you’d have to go out of your way to walk past it.
janesmith1950 said:
The question was 'would it be reasonable for the employer to withhold the CCTV from the accused employee?'. BV appears to answer in the negative.
I’m asking a different question though, based on one I asked earlier in the thread. I would think it’s fairly obvious to anyone that the employer withholding any information that they rely on in a disciplinary would be unreasonable. If it was myself and I hadn't done it then hell would freeze over before I accepted any blame at all. As someone who does a lot of disciplinaries, there would be so many questions to answer in an investigation on this one.
When was the damage noticed, how can they prove it was not there before unidentified figure walks past, was there any history of problems between the two people.
BV is correct, an employer who does a full investigation can dismiss if they genuinely believe that it is the person blamed for the damage. The big issue is they need to be able to prove to the satisfaction of the tribunal panel that they have followed every procedure, have considered every potential other cause and have exhausted fully any other "likely" reason other than to conclude the person blamed was probably responsible.
If they cannot demonstrate that to the tribunal they could lose and be found to have dismissed incorrectly.
When I do investigations, I always look on social media and sites like this as too often people do slip up. Here the one thing that sits badly is this for me, the OP made contact with his insurers, why? If you have not done it why ask? Also why suggest paying?
If you are 100% innocent go through the process sensibly, try to find out where you were at the time of the incident, were you on the phone, in a meeting or anywhere others could help you, let them present you with their reasons and read your hand book regarding the disciplinary process and what it allows. Most will allow only a work colleague or union rep to be present at a disciplinary, but if they allow legal representation then use it.
There is nothing worse than being accused of something you did not do, only to my mind being the sort of person who would key another persons car.
When was the damage noticed, how can they prove it was not there before unidentified figure walks past, was there any history of problems between the two people.
BV is correct, an employer who does a full investigation can dismiss if they genuinely believe that it is the person blamed for the damage. The big issue is they need to be able to prove to the satisfaction of the tribunal panel that they have followed every procedure, have considered every potential other cause and have exhausted fully any other "likely" reason other than to conclude the person blamed was probably responsible.
If they cannot demonstrate that to the tribunal they could lose and be found to have dismissed incorrectly.
When I do investigations, I always look on social media and sites like this as too often people do slip up. Here the one thing that sits badly is this for me, the OP made contact with his insurers, why? If you have not done it why ask? Also why suggest paying?
If you are 100% innocent go through the process sensibly, try to find out where you were at the time of the incident, were you on the phone, in a meeting or anywhere others could help you, let them present you with their reasons and read your hand book regarding the disciplinary process and what it allows. Most will allow only a work colleague or union rep to be present at a disciplinary, but if they allow legal representation then use it.
There is nothing worse than being accused of something you did not do, only to my mind being the sort of person who would key another persons car.
janesmith1950 said:
The question was 'would it be reasonable for the employer to withhold the CCTV from the accused employee?'. BV appears to answer in the negative.
It would be illegal, if they(employer) hold a copy of the cctv and the OP submits a data request ( as the subject) then legally they HAVE to give him a copy of the footage with him in it.If they don't have a copy and have merely been shown it by a 3rd party then that may muddy the waters.....again OP can request a copy and the 3rd party would have to supply if he knows who the 3rd party is.
I'b be hugely surprised if a parking company kept CCTV from 4 months ago though it makes no commercial sense and would cost quite a bit, IMO it smells like bullcrap and something isn't adding up with the story or the employers actions to me.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff