Scratch on colleagues car

[anonymous-user]

surveyor_101 said:

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,

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

Your solicitor is a buffoon. Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer repudiates a contract of employment and the employee resigns as a result of this.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 17th December 14:20

[surveyor_101]

Breadvan72 said:

Your solicitor is a buffoon. Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer repudiates a contract of employment and the employe resigns as a result of this.

Sorry that was what I would say if I was the OP! (Not my personal solicitor)

The implication is that they are hoping the OP resigned due to the false allegation and therefore then it would become Constructive D.

[BertBert]

I'm still wondering how the company got the car park CCTV and ANPR info to be able to make the assumption. From the tales we hear on here it seems nigh on impossible to get third party CCTV. Presumably the wronged party did all that. Who did the detective work to work out that the car coming out on ANPR belonged to the OP? It just doesn't add up.
Bert

[foxbody-87]

I’ve had my car written on before and I was convinced it wasn’t there before work, I sat for ages watching the CCTV before accepting that it probably happened on the street and I simply hadn’t noticed it!

[Car-Matt]

BertBert said:

I'm still wondering how the company got the car park CCTV and ANPR info to be able to make the assumption. From the tales we hear on here it seems nigh on impossible to get third party CCTV. Presumably the wronged party did all that. Who did the detective work to work out that the car coming out on ANPR belonged to the OP? It just doesn't add up.
Bert

Damn right it doesn't as there would have to be a process whereby the data subjects had given permission for the CCTV operator to share the images with independent 3rd parties for use in investigations of this nature. Otherwise there's some GDPR problems for both the operator and the OP's employer.

[graylag]

Car-Matt said:

BertBert said:

I'm still wondering how the company got the car park CCTV and ANPR info to be able to make the assumption. From the tales we hear on here it seems nigh on impossible to get third party CCTV. Presumably the wronged party did all that. Who did the detective work to work out that the car coming out on ANPR belonged to the OP? It just doesn't add up.
Bert

Damn right it doesn't as there would have to be a process whereby the data subjects had given permission for the CCTV operator to share the images with independent 3rd parties for use in investigations of this nature. Otherwise there's some GDPR problems for both the operator and the OP's employer.

The OP says that it’s a public car park, but that their work pay for the parking there. I’d guess that the employer has a contract with the car park company that allows for them to view, hold and store any CCTV as necessary.

The OP has also said that whilst he’s been told of one bit of CCTV, others have said there are lots of cameras up. Given they were out up to protect users of the car park from attacks, then I reckon the coverage will be pretty wideparead and able to follow individuals around the car park.

ANPR may be well wide of the mark. If the car space used by the OP is paid for by his company, then they have probably given their reg number to the car park operators / employers to ensure it doesn’t get ticketed.

[oyster]

Sounds to me like the OP's company has decided they want rid of him/her but as he/she has done more than 2 years service, they want to either concoct a misconduct dismissal or prompt the OP's resignation - to avoid paying either redundancy or a compromise agreement.


OP, as someone else has already pointed out, I'd ignore the shenanigans at your current work and just apply for a new job.

[Car-Matt]

graylag said:

Car-Matt said:

BertBert said:

I'm still wondering how the company got the car park CCTV and ANPR info to be able to make the assumption. From the tales we hear on here it seems nigh on impossible to get third party CCTV. Presumably the wronged party did all that. Who did the detective work to work out that the car coming out on ANPR belonged to the OP? It just doesn't add up.
Bert

Damn right it doesn't as there would have to be a process whereby the data subjects had given permission for the CCTV operator to share the images with independent 3rd parties for use in investigations of this nature. Otherwise there's some GDPR problems for both the operator and the OP's employer.

The OP says that it’s a public car park, but that their work pay for the parking there. I’d guess that the employer has a contract with the car park company that allows for them to view, hold and store any CCTV as necessary.

The OP has also said that whilst he’s been told of one bit of CCTV, others have said there are lots of cameras up. Given they were out up to protect users of the car park from attacks, then I reckon the coverage will be pretty wideparead and able to follow individuals around the car park.

ANPR may be well wide of the mark. If the car space used by the OP is paid for by his company, then they have probably given their reg number to the car park operators / employers to ensure it doesn’t get ticketed.

Pretty wild guess IME given the cost of this, most cctv records over itself in a short period and is mostly a deterrent, the cost of storing large amounts of footage indefinitely racks up, also the OP would have had to expressly given permission for that to happen somewhere being the data subject. He appears to be totally unaware of this........

[graylag]

Car-Matt said:

Pretty wild guess IME given the cost of this, most cctv records over itself in a short period and is mostly a deterrent, the cost of storing large amounts of footage indefinitely racks up, also the OP would have had to expressly given permission for that to happen somewhere being the data subject. He appears to be totally unaware of this........

Storage costs peanuts nowadays. I’ve got 12 CCTV cameras dotted around my house and grounds and it stores 56 days before needing to overwrote anything. The box cost under £200. Even at commercial grade, the costs are pretty minimal, especially if it’s in place due to historic assaults in the car park.

A sign on the car park stating that it’s monitored by CCTV is sufficient, there will probably be something that he signed when he was given his car park pass too.

You seem to think that companies are pretty poor at this stuff, when the reality is that most are probably over the top in their compliance.

[Car-Matt]

graylag said:

Car-Matt said:

Pretty wild guess IME given the cost of this, most cctv records over itself in a short period and is mostly a deterrent, the cost of storing large amounts of footage indefinitely racks up, also the OP would have had to expressly given permission for that to happen somewhere being the data subject. He appears to be totally unaware of this........

Storage costs peanuts nowadays. I’ve got 12 CCTV cameras dotted around my house and grounds and it stores 56 days before needing to overwrote anything. The box cost under £200. Even at commercial grade, the costs are pretty minimal, especially if it’s in place due to historic assaults in the car park.

A sign on the car park stating that it’s monitored by CCTV is sufficient, there will probably be something that he signed when he was given his car park pass too.

You seem to think that companies are pretty poor at this stuff, when the reality is that most are probably over the top in their compliance.

I know from professional experience that lots are bad at it. Also would your home setup pass any relative quality audit?

[NikTheGeek]

I wasn't planning on reading 8 pages of answers, so apologies as this will have probably be pointed out already, but the Data Protection Act (GDPR) gives you the right to view any CCTV footage that contains you. So demand a copy if you wish. They have to remove (or blur) faces of other identifiable people in the copy they give you, but they don't have to blur cars. You'll be able to see any evidence then for yourself.

HTH, Nik

[lyonspride]

NikTheGeek said:

I wasn't planning on reading 8 pages of answers, so apologies as this will have probably be pointed out already, but the Data Protection Act (GDPR) gives you the right to view any CCTV footage that contains you. So demand a copy if you wish. They have to remove (or blur) faces of other identifiable people in the copy they give you, but they don't have to blur cars. You'll be able to see any evidence then for yourself.

HTH, Nik

This ^^


To be honest, managers car, probably a company vehicle, probably did it himself (or pissed someone off with his poor driving) and is looking for a scapegoat to avoid embarrassment.

Unfortunately, even if you fight this off, they'll almost certainly come after you for something else just to save face.
Get your arse in gear, start covering your back, the first thing they'll go for is attendance and timekeeping (because it an easy one, often not recorded properly and it's usually down to your word v someone else). Inappropriate use of company computers is another easy one, they can plant stuff on your PC, falsify server logs, etc. Most other things would require a willing witness to lie for them.........

[pavarotti1980]

NikTheGeek said:

I wasn't planning on reading 8 pages of answers, so apologies as this will have probably be pointed out already, but the Data Protection Act (GDPR) gives you the right to view any CCTV footage that contains you. So demand a copy if you wish. They have to remove (or blur) faces of other identifiable people in the copy they give you, but they don't have to blur cars. You'll be able to see any evidence then for yourself.

HTH, Nik

The CCTV according the OP manager does not provide sufficient detail to identify anyone so that could be a staumbling block to asking for CCTV that contains the OP as they wont be able to make him out. I would say that being unidentifiable in this situation is of benefit to the OP

[graylag]

lyonspride said:

This ^^


To be honest, managers car, probably a company vehicle, probably did it himself (or pissed someone off with his poor driving) and is looking for a scapegoat to avoid embarrassment.

Unfortunately, even if you fight this off, they'll almost certainly come after you for something else just to save face.
Get your arse in gear, start covering your back, the first thing they'll go for is attendance and timekeeping (because it an easy one, often not recorded properly and it's usually down to your word v someone else). Inappropriate use of company computers is another easy one, they can plant stuff on your PC, falsify server logs, etc. Most other things would require a willing witness to lie for them.........

I love that I get accused of wild accusations, but others by prefacing their support of the OP with comments like “to be honest” and “let’s be honest” somehow get away with their ridiculously wild
Conspiracy theories.

The OP has asked for help but not provided answers to some simple questions. He’s also said things like “I remember walking past the car but not that I did anything” just after saying “I can’t remember what I did last week” and things like contacting his insurance.

My take is the employers possibly have enough circumstantial evidence for a disciplinary but are hoping to avoid it by letting the OP confess and pay for the damage. The moment it gets to the stage of “show me the video and then I’ll decide whether I’m going to own up or not” tends to suggest that they’ll save that for disciplinary. It also sort of damns the OP as well. Equally the BMW owner may be happy with the damage being paid for rather than a disciplinary and no payment.

If anyone is wondering why I’m not siding with the OP, it’s because there is a lot of missing info and I hate people keying cars. Whether the OP did or didn’t is really only known by him currently but may be proven one way or the other by the CCTV.

[pavarotti1980]

graylag said:

I love that I get accused of wild accusations, but others by prefacing their support of the OP with comments like “to be honest” and “let’s be honest” somehow get away with their ridiculously wild
Conspiracy theories.

The OP has asked for help but not provided answers to some simple questions. He’s also said things like “I remember walking past the car but not that I did anything” just after saying “I can’t remember what I did last week” and things like contacting his insurance.

My take is the employers possibly have enough circumstantial evidence for a disciplinary but are hoping to avoid it by letting the OP confess and pay for the damage. The moment it gets to the stage of “show me the video and then I’ll decide whether I’m going to own up or not” tends to suggest that they’ll save that for disciplinary. It also sort of damns the OP as well. Equally the BMW owner may be happy with the damage being paid for rather than a disciplinary and no payment.

If anyone is wondering why I’m not siding with the OP, it’s because there is a lot of missing info and I hate people keying cars. Whether the OP did or didn’t is really only known by him currently but may be proven one way or the other by the CCTV.

Who needs enemies eh?

[carinaman]

1. Does the OP benefit from having an unproven and unsubstantiated allegation against their name?

2. Are there any possible future consequences of the OP having an unproven and unsubstantiated allegation against their name?

3. If those that have made a false allegation are allowed to get away with their conduct could they be emboldened to try similarly malicious claims against someone else who rather than walk away and find another job may resort to suicide, due to the allegation alone or because the cumulative affect of a baseless, spurious allegation being made on top of other overwhelming factors?

4. As stated before it can be amusing and beneficial experience wise to turn the tables on those that try such tactics to see how they react.

[graylag]

pavarotti1980 said:

Who needs enemies eh?

The rest of that saying is “........ with friends like this”. I’m not his friend. I don’t know him. I try to gather facts before making my mind up on anything and the OP has given some facts, some that help him and some that don’t. However, he’s not given much more info when asked for it, which often speaks volumes in my experience, obviously your experience may vary.

[carinaman]

graylag said:

pavarotti1980 said:

Who needs enemies eh?

The rest of that saying is “........ with friends like this”. I’m not his friend. I don’t know him. I try to gather facts before making my mind up on anything and the OP has given some facts, some that help him and some that don’t. However, he’s not given much more info when asked for it, which often speaks volumes in my experience, obviously your experience may vary.

That doesn't read well. That could read like how those that make false allegations react when stood up against.

Breadvan72 said:

Your solicitor is a buffoon. Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer repudiates a contract of employment and the employee resigns as a result of this.

That makes it about the solicitor and not their supposed advice. It's more bantz than legal professional.

[graylag]

carinaman said:

graylag said:

pavarotti1980 said:

Who needs enemies eh?

The rest of that saying is “........ with friends like this”. I’m not his friend. I don’t know him. I try to gather facts before making my mind up on anything and the OP has given some facts, some that help him and some that don’t. However, he’s not given much more info when asked for it, which often speaks volumes in my experience, obviously your experience may vary.

That doesn't read well. That could read like how those that make false allegations react when stood up against.

Breadvan72 said:

Your solicitor is a buffoon. Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer repudiates a contract of employment and the employee resigns as a result of this.

That makes it about the solicitor and not their supposed advice. It's more bantz than legal professional.

Give over. This is a forum where we debate and discuss and share opinions. Neither of us is involved in this directly.

Your other post is going to unbelievable extremes.

[Armadillo 43]

If it goes to court, they will surely have to give you/your lawyer the video under rules requiring disclosure of any evidence which might support you. Point this out, and they may see sense and show you now; the 'security reasons' stuff is codswallop.
Your story still sounds incomplete, but their claim sounds no more than a fishing expedition with nothing to back it up. It's tempting to say: tell them to take a running jump, but the sensible course is probably to seek a solicitor's opinion; if thats as far as it goes, it won't cost a lot.