Scratch on colleagues car
Discussion
Aiminghigh123 said:
It’s a public car park but our company pays for us to use it.
It’s managed by a separate car park security.
I asked to speak to the car park security manager but he is on holiday until new year.
Well they have to right not to show any non security personnel, but they have to show it to the authorities and they will have to show you if they exhibit it as evidence.It’s managed by a separate car park security.
I asked to speak to the car park security manager but he is on holiday until new year.
However, if their CCTV footage can't even show you did it on that car. It is their burden to prove the scratch wasn't there before he enter the car park, and you are the only person walk pass the car.
I am not a Barrister, just have some experience dealing with them, I would say they have a lot to prove if they want to pin it on you interms of legal responsibility
Walking past a car and catching it with a zip (or whatever) is not going to cause anything other than a surface scratch which can be polished out.
Squeezing past a car and rubbing a zip up an entire wing is rather different.
I would remember squeezing past a car, enough to score the paintwork. I wouldn't be in the 'might have, don't really remember' camp.
It sounds like this guy's BMW has been damaged beyond a surface scratch on the clear coat.
I think I would be a little more indignant about being accused of vandalism.
CrgT16 said:
I think the OP has been economic with the truth.... there is more here than meets the eye. Money is that he did it, knows he did it and was hoping to get away with it...
He might be, he might not be, but my approach is to generally just take what people post at face value and answer the question posed. If they're lying or asking the wrong question, then it's not going to help them.I'd tell them to f
k off simply on the basis of the "we'll show the CCTV footage to some people but not others" nonsense.
Red 4 said:
Aiminghigh123 said:
. There is a chance I did walk past his car and catch with a bag/coat, but the whole length of the car seems strange with no photo evidence of the scratches provided how much damage can a bag coat do?
In summary then, you may have scratched the car.You've played down the make/ model thing because you are trying to make out you paid no attention to the car (99% of PH'ers would know the difference between an M3 and an M5).
You are asking what you should do because the video evidence is inconclusive but you are rather cagey about what may have happened ...
Something not quite right here imo.
Insufficient evidence for any criminal charges but a bit wiffy nevertheless ...
Been over 12 hours with no response from him.
So we're talking about a deep scratch from one end of this car to the other.
That's very unlikely to be caused by someone squeezing through with a bag/clothing zipper.
You either did it - intentionally or accidentally - or you didn't.
Only you know the answer to that one.
If you did it then plead accidental & pay up. Your car insurance have nothing to do with it.
If you didn't & are confident there is no video or other evidence to show you doing it then deny it totally, brook no further discussion about the matter & invite them to either report it to the Police as an allegation of criminal damage or drop it.
That's very unlikely to be caused by someone squeezing through with a bag/clothing zipper.
You either did it - intentionally or accidentally - or you didn't.
Only you know the answer to that one.
If you did it then plead accidental & pay up. Your car insurance have nothing to do with it.
If you didn't & are confident there is no video or other evidence to show you doing it then deny it totally, brook no further discussion about the matter & invite them to either report it to the Police as an allegation of criminal damage or drop it.
graylag said:
Car-Matt said:
Having chaired many tribunals I’d say it wouldn’t stick at one of mine.
No evidence to speak of
Then you don’t understand the remit of your position. You have no recourse over the details, just over agreed legal and company procedure and compliance with it. No evidence to speak of
That’s it really. You can go all Nancy Drew but that holds no sway.
By the way, there is nothing in my company procedures allowing me to start a disciplinary process against somebody for something we cant know they did, let alone taking that further to its conclusion of termination of contract. We'd get hammered under the EAT guidelines....particularly the bit where it mentions "has no evidence to support its decision"........ so getting all Nancy Drew is necessary unfortunately. As i said i've chaired many tribunals and been part of many tribunals/capability hearings and sat on many internal prison hearings. Thanks for your input
Car-Matt said:
So lets suppose you work for my company and somebody suddenly randomly accuses you of murdering the CEO's wife in the car park, nothing on film and no evidence to suggest it was you. Would you expect to be taken through a disciplinary procedure leading to a tribunal and contract termination? What would you do if it did?
By the way, there is nothing in my company procedures allowing me to start a disciplinary process against somebody for something we cant know they did, let alone taking that further to its conclusion of termination of contract. We'd get hammered under the EAT guidelines....particularly the bit where it mentions "has no evidence to support its decision"........ so getting all Nancy Drew is necessary unfortunately. As i said i've chaired many tribunals and been part of many tribunals/capability hearings and sat on many internal prison hearings. Thanks for your input
Yes, murder is exactly the same as this scratched car. By the way, there is nothing in my company procedures allowing me to start a disciplinary process against somebody for something we cant know they did, let alone taking that further to its conclusion of termination of contract. We'd get hammered under the EAT guidelines....particularly the bit where it mentions "has no evidence to support its decision"........ so getting all Nancy Drew is necessary unfortunately. As i said i've chaired many tribunals and been part of many tribunals/capability hearings and sat on many internal prison hearings. Thanks for your input
However, to humour you, here’s how a tribunal works. They sit down and ask which part of the documented disciplinary procedure wasn’t adhered to. That’s it. They don’t investigate the issue(s) that led to the dismissal. That’s it. Quite often they preface the hearing with words along the lines of “We are not here to pass judgement on whether you did or didn’t commit the act(s) that led to the dismissal. Please don’t bring that up as part of your appeal”
You claiming to have sat on tribunals makes no difference to what a tribunal does in reality.
graylag said:
Yes, murder is exactly the same as this scratched car.
However, to humour you, here’s how a tribunal works. They sit down and ask which part of the documented disciplinary procedure wasn’t adhered to. That’s it. They don’t investigate the issue(s) that led to the dismissal. That’s it. Quite often they preface the hearing with words along the lines of “We are not here to pass judgement on whether you did or didn’t commit the act(s) that led to the dismissal. Please don’t bring that up as part of your appeal”
You claiming to have sat on tribunals makes no difference to what a tribunal does in reality.
Not sure how a tribunal works but surely there’s more than one person in the room? However, to humour you, here’s how a tribunal works. They sit down and ask which part of the documented disciplinary procedure wasn’t adhered to. That’s it. They don’t investigate the issue(s) that led to the dismissal. That’s it. Quite often they preface the hearing with words along the lines of “We are not here to pass judgement on whether you did or didn’t commit the act(s) that led to the dismissal. Please don’t bring that up as part of your appeal”
You claiming to have sat on tribunals makes no difference to what a tribunal does in reality.
I haven’t been to any tribunal about this just a meeting with my manager.
graylag said:
Car-Matt said:
So lets suppose you work for my company and somebody suddenly randomly accuses you of murdering the CEO's wife in the car park, nothing on film and no evidence to suggest it was you. Would you expect to be taken through a disciplinary procedure leading to a tribunal and contract termination? What would you do if it did?
By the way, there is nothing in my company procedures allowing me to start a disciplinary process against somebody for something we cant know they did, let alone taking that further to its conclusion of termination of contract. We'd get hammered under the EAT guidelines....particularly the bit where it mentions "has no evidence to support its decision"........ so getting all Nancy Drew is necessary unfortunately. As i said i've chaired many tribunals and been part of many tribunals/capability hearings and sat on many internal prison hearings. Thanks for your input
Yes, murder is exactly the same as this scratched car. By the way, there is nothing in my company procedures allowing me to start a disciplinary process against somebody for something we cant know they did, let alone taking that further to its conclusion of termination of contract. We'd get hammered under the EAT guidelines....particularly the bit where it mentions "has no evidence to support its decision"........ so getting all Nancy Drew is necessary unfortunately. As i said i've chaired many tribunals and been part of many tribunals/capability hearings and sat on many internal prison hearings. Thanks for your input
However, to humour you, here’s how a tribunal works. They sit down and ask which part of the documented disciplinary procedure wasn’t adhered to. That’s it. They don’t investigate the issue(s) that led to the dismissal. That’s it. Quite often they preface the hearing with words along the lines of “We are not here to pass judgement on whether you did or didn’t commit the act(s) that led to the dismissal. Please don’t bring that up as part of your appeal”
You claiming to have sat on tribunals makes no difference to what a tribunal does in reality.
Why do you think you can start a disciplinary in this instance with zero evidence?
https://www.gov.uk/appeal-employment-appeal-tribun...
From my point of view and what others have said what if something more sinister is happening to this guy?
I ask this from an incident that happened at my misses old company. Guy A claim discrimination against another guy B. Guy B was given time off work for 6 months while investigations went on almost lost his wife etc. It turned out that Guy A had been using a company credit card to pay his mortgage and made up the allegation to give him more time to be able to “pay” back the company. Obviously Guy A got fired but no one suspected he was in so much financial trouble.
Which is why I asked to see photo evidence of scratches. None has been produced.
I ask this from an incident that happened at my misses old company. Guy A claim discrimination against another guy B. Guy B was given time off work for 6 months while investigations went on almost lost his wife etc. It turned out that Guy A had been using a company credit card to pay his mortgage and made up the allegation to give him more time to be able to “pay” back the company. Obviously Guy A got fired but no one suspected he was in so much financial trouble.
Which is why I asked to see photo evidence of scratches. None has been produced.
Aiminghigh123 said:
graylag said:
Yes, murder is exactly the same as this scratched car.
However, to humour you, here’s how a tribunal works. They sit down and ask which part of the documented disciplinary procedure wasn’t adhered to. That’s it. They don’t investigate the issue(s) that led to the dismissal. That’s it. Quite often they preface the hearing with words along the lines of “We are not here to pass judgement on whether you did or didn’t commit the act(s) that led to the dismissal. Please don’t bring that up as part of your appeal”
You claiming to have sat on tribunals makes no difference to what a tribunal does in reality.
Not sure how a tribunal works but surely there’s more than one person in the room? However, to humour you, here’s how a tribunal works. They sit down and ask which part of the documented disciplinary procedure wasn’t adhered to. That’s it. They don’t investigate the issue(s) that led to the dismissal. That’s it. Quite often they preface the hearing with words along the lines of “We are not here to pass judgement on whether you did or didn’t commit the act(s) that led to the dismissal. Please don’t bring that up as part of your appeal”
You claiming to have sat on tribunals makes no difference to what a tribunal does in reality.
I haven’t been to any tribunal about this just a meeting with my manager.
Car-Matt said:
As I said, what part of the discliplinary procedure in a decent company allows me to discipline an employee for something they deny doing and I cant say with any degree of certainty they did? ..... I'd get hammered if they legally challenged it following a contract termination.
Why do you think you can start a disciplinary in this instance with zero evidence?
https://www.gov.uk/appeal-employment-appeal-tribun...
You’ve jumped ahead of yourself here. Why do you think you can start a disciplinary in this instance with zero evidence?
https://www.gov.uk/appeal-employment-appeal-tribun...
I’ve said that they would have to go through the process and decide on the correct punishment, if he’s found “guilty”. A tribunal would only be relevant if the OP is dismissed and he many already be on a final written warning for all we know. You were the one who jumped straight to a tribunal and them overruling it based on no evidence. I’m pretty certain that the company would be robust in the evidence gathering before proceeding down any route.
Let’s put it this way. The chat they’ve had so far is quite possibly to try to avoid the need for a disciplinary process being invoked. The evidence they have based on what the OP has given us is circumstantial, but could be sufficient for him to be shown to be the person who did the damage. Whether that is an employment matter though is open to debate. Damage to a colleagues car on subcontracted business premises is possibly tenuous, but there may be more to the story. We don’t know if these two have history, we don’t know if there were threats made by either side, we don’t know who is the more senior and how much more senior that person is, or whether they’re on a par.
There is a lot missing to decide whether it’s an employment issue. However, I would suggest that the manager’s comments about getting his insurance to sort it are telling, if a little misguided.
graylag said:
You’ve jumped ahead of yourself here.
I’ve said that they would have to go through the process and decide on the correct punishment, if he’s found “guilty”. A tribunal would only be relevant if the OP is dismissed and he many already be on a final written warning for all we know. You were the one who jumped straight to a tribunal and them overruling it based on no evidence. I’m pretty certain that the company would be robust in the evidence gathering before proceeding down any route.
Let’s put it this way. The chat they’ve had so far is quite possibly to try to avoid the need for a disciplinary process being invoked. The evidence they have based on what the OP has given us is circumstantial, but could be sufficient for him to be shown to be the person who did the damage. Whether that is an employment matter though is open to debate. Damage to a colleagues car on subcontracted business premises is possibly tenuous, but there may be more to the story. We don’t know if these two have history, we don’t know if there were threats made by either side, we don’t know who is the more senior and how much more senior that person is, or whether they’re on a par.
There is a lot missing to decide whether it’s an employment issue. However, I would suggest that the manager’s comments about getting his insurance to sort it are telling, if a little misguided.
What exactly could the company "create" a disciplinary for exactly?I’ve said that they would have to go through the process and decide on the correct punishment, if he’s found “guilty”. A tribunal would only be relevant if the OP is dismissed and he many already be on a final written warning for all we know. You were the one who jumped straight to a tribunal and them overruling it based on no evidence. I’m pretty certain that the company would be robust in the evidence gathering before proceeding down any route.
Let’s put it this way. The chat they’ve had so far is quite possibly to try to avoid the need for a disciplinary process being invoked. The evidence they have based on what the OP has given us is circumstantial, but could be sufficient for him to be shown to be the person who did the damage. Whether that is an employment matter though is open to debate. Damage to a colleagues car on subcontracted business premises is possibly tenuous, but there may be more to the story. We don’t know if these two have history, we don’t know if there were threats made by either side, we don’t know who is the more senior and how much more senior that person is, or whether they’re on a par.
There is a lot missing to decide whether it’s an employment issue. However, I would suggest that the manager’s comments about getting his insurance to sort it are telling, if a little misguided.
pavarotti1980 said:
What exactly could the company "create" a disciplinary for exactly?
There’s no “creating” about it. A company can expect their employees to treat each other with respect, keying someone’s car and then denying it when there’s clear evidence to prove they did it* would fall into that category. However, as I said above there is the aspect that damage to an employees car whilst not on company premises wouldn’t be an employment issue. It al, depends on what evidence there is. However, I can certainly say that I would not want a member of staff who happily damages another’s car and then denies it working for me** I’m working on the basis that the video evidence is sufficient
graylag said:
There’s no “creating” about it. A company can expect their employees to treat each other with respect, keying someone’s car and then denying it when there’s clear evidence to prove they did it* would fall into that category. However, as I said above there is the aspect that damage to an employees car whilst not on company premises wouldn’t be an employment issue. It al, depends on what evidence there is. However, I can certainly say that I would not want a member of staff who happily damages another’s car and then denies it working for me*
* I’m working on the basis that the video evidence is sufficient
So not treating someone with respect (allegedly keying someones key with no evidence) is sufficient to bring disciplinary proceedings. OP did say that manager said the video image "looked like him but couldnt be 100%" so lets go with there being no video evidence at all to help because they are clearyl chancing it given it is 4 months after the alleged event and the BMW driver knows exactly which day it has happened however chose not to do anything at all for the intervening time until now* I’m working on the basis that the video evidence is sufficient
Its winter so there will be plenty of thin ice to be skating on so may as well as add this to it
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Wednesday 12th December 11:16
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Wednesday 12th December 11:18
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. graylag said:
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.
See above edited post and also quote from OP original post"They claim the CCTV is not clear enough to see faces"
So no not dense just able to read the posts properly without creating a different scenario.
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Wednesday 12th December 11:21
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff