Scratch on colleagues car
Discussion
pavarotti1980 said:
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
You asked in what scenario could they “create” a disciplinary matter. I stated
1. If the video evidence is clear, then that would probably suffice
2. If it’s not then it’s probably insufficient.
There is no “creating” a case. There is either evidence, or there isn’t. Do I believe the OP’s story? No. Do I think he did it? Yes. None of that matters though with this, it’s whether there is sufficient evidence to prove he did. If there is, then he will be paying for the repair and probably in some degree of s
t with his employer. The level of proof isn’t at criminal levels either, balance of probabilities would certainly be sufficient. If the circumstantial evidence around him is good enough then he’s in bother. The OP has admitted that he walked past the car. Nobody else did according to the CCTV, his car was the only one to leave after the person walked past the BMW when the damage was allegedly caused. The only real issue is whether the damage was caused then, or whether it was done elsewhere before or after and that might be hard to prove. However, the manner in which the person walks past the car could be quite telling.
Equally, is there any reason to walk past the BMW? Is it near a pedestrian exit or walkway? Or did the person who walked past it need to go out of their way to be near it? That could decide on the probability of damage being done then.
The OP has already taken some action and admitted he might have walked past it.
graylag said:
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:
Yep, dense.
You asked in what scenario could they “create” a disciplinary matter. I stated
1. If the video evidence is clear, then that would probably suffice
2. If it’s not then it’s probably insufficient.
There is no “creating” a case. There is either evidence, or there isn’t. Do I believe the OP’s story? No. Do I think he did it? Yes. None of that matters though with this, it’s whether there is sufficient evidence to prove he did. If there is, then he will be paying for the repair and probably in some degree of st with his employer.
The level of proof isn’t at criminal levels either, balance of probabilities would certainly be sufficient. If the circumstantial evidence around him is good enough then he’s in bother. The OP has admitted that he walked past the car. Nobody else did according to the CCTV, his car was the only one to leave after the person walked past the BMW when the damage was allegedly caused. The only real issue is whether the damage was caused then, or whether it was done elsewhere before or after and that might be hard to prove. However, the manner in which the person walks past the car could be quite telling.
Equally, is there any reason to walk past the BMW? Is it near a pedestrian exit or walkway? Or did the person who walked past it need to go out of their way to be near it? That could decide on the probability of damage being done then.
The OP has already taken some action and admitted he might have walked past it.
You have created a scenario of employment triubunals based on the complete opposite of what the OP postedYou asked in what scenario could they “create” a disciplinary matter. I stated
1. If the video evidence is clear, then that would probably suffice
2. If it’s not then it’s probably insufficient.
There is no “creating” a case. There is either evidence, or there isn’t. Do I believe the OP’s story? No. Do I think he did it? Yes. None of that matters though with this, it’s whether there is sufficient evidence to prove he did. If there is, then he will be paying for the repair and probably in some degree of s
t with his employer. The level of proof isn’t at criminal levels either, balance of probabilities would certainly be sufficient. If the circumstantial evidence around him is good enough then he’s in bother. The OP has admitted that he walked past the car. Nobody else did according to the CCTV, his car was the only one to leave after the person walked past the BMW when the damage was allegedly caused. The only real issue is whether the damage was caused then, or whether it was done elsewhere before or after and that might be hard to prove. However, the manner in which the person walks past the car could be quite telling.
Equally, is there any reason to walk past the BMW? Is it near a pedestrian exit or walkway? Or did the person who walked past it need to go out of their way to be near it? That could decide on the probability of damage being done then.
The OP has already taken some action and admitted he might have walked past it.
Jesus you know how to blow something out of all proportion, and you still cant read either. Allegedly the OP walked past this car to get into his own but the CCTV is not clear to make out faces, therefore they have relied on ANPR entry and exit data (of which the private company should not be retaining 4 months after the event anyway) to say it was the OP.
Also it has taken 4 months to come about. If the damage was as bad as described the owner of BMW would notice very quickly. Therefore why has it taken 4 months to notice and do something about it and also its very clever to able to pinpoint with 100% certainty the exact day in which this damage happened (given that it wsnt even noticed)
My guess is the BMW driver has discovered damage and doesnt want to pay himself and is matey with manager. They have trawled CCTV to look for someone who walked past car and try to pin it on them. Of course that is on the balance of probabilities.
When the damage occured is almost impossible to ascertain so absolutely nothing will happen, hence telling employer to stick it and for the BMW driver to go to the police if they are sure that
a) they can categorically attribute the actions of the OP to the damage
b) they can prove that is the exact time the damage occured.
They will be able to prove neither given the time which has lapsed so none of this disciplinary guff is relevant and the police will tell him to jog on too
Car-Matt said:
So totally back tracking then as I made it clear I was working on the video evidence being wholly inconclusive.
No backtracking at all and your only comment around the video being inconclusive is from a police perspective (see below). An employer does not have to prove anything to a criminal extent in an employment matter. I stand 100% by my comments. Car-Matt said:
Just tell your employer you didnt do it and thats the end of it.
They cant try to fire you over it ( it wont stick at a tribunal ) and the Police wont be interested unless you are clearly visible on video actually scratching the car.
I can believe your employer thinks its any of their business. i'd soon tell them to foxtrot oscar if it was my employer!
They cant try to fire you over it ( it wont stick at a tribunal ) and the Police wont be interested unless you are clearly visible on video actually scratching the car.
I can believe your employer thinks its any of their business. i'd soon tell them to foxtrot oscar if it was my employer!
graylag said:
Car-Matt said:
So totally back tracking then as I made it clear I was working on the video evidence being wholly inconclusive.
No backtracking at all and your only comment around the video being inconclusive is from a police perspective (see below). An employer does not have to prove anything to a criminal extent in an employment matter. I stand 100% by my comments. Car-Matt said:
Just tell your employer you didnt do it and thats the end of it.
They cant try to fire you over it ( it wont stick at a tribunal ) and the Police wont be interested unless you are clearly visible on video actually scratching the car.
I can believe your employer thinks its any of their business. i'd soon tell them to foxtrot oscar if it was my employer!
They cant try to fire you over it ( it wont stick at a tribunal ) and the Police wont be interested unless you are clearly visible on video actually scratching the car.
I can believe your employer thinks its any of their business. i'd soon tell them to foxtrot oscar if it was my employer!
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 also stand 100% by mine, all of my comments are based around the OP being innocent if you read them..........the company wont even be able to bring a disciplinary let alone it get to a tribunal as there is no evidence to suggest the OP did this as long as he is telling the truth and there are no previous incidents or history between the two individuals that hasn't been disclosed by the OPIf they did discipline him and go to a tribunal and dismiss him his appeal would be successful ( see the posted EAT information ) on the basis of a lack of evidence amongST other things.
Edited by Car-Matt on Wednesday 12th December 11:53
Edited by Car-Matt on Wednesday 12th December 11:53
So in conclusion
The CCTV footage isn't clear enough to show faces.
The CCTV cameras don't cover all of the car park.
Anybody could have walked past that car 4 months ago.
That OP's car was next leaving the car park doesn't necessarily mean he was the person seen walking past the car.
They won't provide any footage of the person in the CCTV for OP to admit or deny it was him.
The CCTV footage isn't clear enough to show faces.
The CCTV cameras don't cover all of the car park.
Anybody could have walked past that car 4 months ago.
That OP's car was next leaving the car park doesn't necessarily mean he was the person seen walking past the car.
They won't provide any footage of the person in the CCTV for OP to admit or deny it was him.
pavarotti1980 said:
You have created a scenario of employment triubunals based on the complete opposite of what the OP posted
Jesus you know how to blow something out of all proportion, and you still cant read either. Allegedly the OP walked past this car to get into his own but the CCTV is not clear to make out faces, therefore they have relied on ANPR entry and exit data (of which the private company should not be retaining 4 months after the event anyway) to say it was the OP.
Also it has taken 4 months to come about. If the damage was as bad as described the owner of BMW would notice very quickly. Therefore why has it taken 4 months to notice and do something about it and also its very clever to able to pinpoint with 100% certainty the exact day in which this damage happened (given that it wsnt even noticed)
My guess is the BMW driver has discovered damage and doesnt want to pay himself and is matey with manager. They have trawled CCTV to look for someone who walked past car and try to pin it on them. Of course that is on the balance of probabilities.
When the damage occured is almost impossible to ascertain so absolutely nothing will happen, hence telling employer to stick it and for the BMW driver to go to the police if they are sure that
a) they can categorically attribute the actions of the OP to the damage
b) they can prove that is the exact time the damage occured.
They will be able to prove neither given the time which has lapsed so none of this disciplinary guff is relevant
Let’s try this again shall we. Jesus you know how to blow something out of all proportion, and you still cant read either. Allegedly the OP walked past this car to get into his own but the CCTV is not clear to make out faces, therefore they have relied on ANPR entry and exit data (of which the private company should not be retaining 4 months after the event anyway) to say it was the OP.
Also it has taken 4 months to come about. If the damage was as bad as described the owner of BMW would notice very quickly. Therefore why has it taken 4 months to notice and do something about it and also its very clever to able to pinpoint with 100% certainty the exact day in which this damage happened (given that it wsnt even noticed)
My guess is the BMW driver has discovered damage and doesnt want to pay himself and is matey with manager. They have trawled CCTV to look for someone who walked past car and try to pin it on them. Of course that is on the balance of probabilities.
When the damage occured is almost impossible to ascertain so absolutely nothing will happen, hence telling employer to stick it and for the BMW driver to go to the police if they are sure that
a) they can categorically attribute the actions of the OP to the damage
b) they can prove that is the exact time the damage occured.
They will be able to prove neither given the time which has lapsed so none of this disciplinary guff is relevant
I didn’t mention tribunals first, someone else did and their assertion was wrong. I corrected them, but they don’t like that.
We don’t have the full story. Was walking past the BMW a common event? Is it on a pedestrian walkway, or did the shadowy figure have to go out of his / her way? This person was the only one who walked past it that day, that suggests it wasn’t a walkway.
The OP has been off work for a while. He states two months on Paternity leave, which is very generous. Is this the first opportunity to discuss it? I think there’s more to this side of the story around timelines too.
Why shouldn’t the company retain the CCTV footage? It is there to prevent crime and has captured an offence, albeit maybe not with crystal clarity. Please don’t waffle on about GDPR, as this is completely irrelevant here.
Reference to the police is tangential. They may refer it, they may not. There is often insufficient evidence to prosecute criminally (beyond reasonable doubt), but a civil (balance of probabilities) claim is successful. Employment matters are far mor win line with the latter.
You clearly believe the OP, I don’t. However, what I’m saying is that the employer has more information than we have and the opportunity to question further. That’s what they will be doing and then deciding if there is a case to answer from an employment perspective.
graylag said:
Let’s try this again shall we.
I didn’t mention tribunals first, someone else did and their assertion was wrong. I corrected them, but they don’t like that.
You blethered on about tribunals and disciplinaries to the point of suggesting the OP would be sacked. Wind it backI didn’t mention tribunals first, someone else did and their assertion was wrong. I corrected them, but they don’t like that.
The issue you have is understanding the text in the posts I will address them seperately for ease for you.
graylag said:
We don’t have the full story. Was walking past the BMW a common event? Is it on a pedestrian walkway, or did the shadowy figure have to go out of his / her way? This person was the only one who walked past it that day, that suggests it wasn’t a walkway.
You are correct we dont have the full story. Hence why making comments on the facts as they have presented by the OP and not jumping to conclusions. The OP has stated it appears that his car was parked next the BMW. Now that is a pretty good reason to be near the BMW. There is no mention of pedestrian walkways, shadowy figures. Just a person (at this point unidentifiable) walks near the BMW and proceeds to get in their own vehicle graylag said:
The OP has been off work for a while. He states two months on Paternity leave, which is very generous. Is this the first opportunity to discuss it? I think there’s more to this side of the story around timelines too.
If this happened 4 months ago and he has been away from work on paternity leave for 2 months, that leaves 2 months for the BMW owner to notice the damage. If it is a full length scratch down one side this would be noticale in 2 months. They could have doen something about it then. The OP also stated he has been back to work for the male equivalent of KIT days so something could have been done then as well. The OP is still on paternity leave so why mention it now? its actually called shared parental leave now and given your rich history in HR aspects of business i thought you would realise that parents can split leave now for quite a lengthy period of time so its not generous, just following employment legislationgraylag said:
Why shouldn’t the company retain the CCTV footage? It is there to prevent crime and has captured an offence, albeit maybe not with crystal clarity. Please don’t waffle on about GDPR, as this is completely irrelevant here.
You didnt read my post. I didnt mention CCTV retention. I mentioned ANPR retention in reference to them allegedly identifying the OP from his vehicle registration leaving the car park. ICO dictated that the retenion of ANPR data should be for no longer than is required for the operation of car parking facilities. WHy does a parking operator require ANPR data 4 months after they have known that a car (which will no doubt be whitelisted) left a car park? That bit is relevant to this scenario as well as the likely omission of data sharing agreements between parking operator and employer. graylag said:
Reference to the police is tangential. They may refer it, they may not. There is often insufficient evidence to prosecute criminally (beyond reasonable doubt), but a civil (balance of probabilities) claim is successful. Employment matters are far mor win line with the latter.
The only thing that is relevant for either isa) When did the damage occur? Who knows. It seems it took the BMW owner 4 months to realise
b) Why is it felt that one specific day was the day in question when the damage occured given they did nothing about it for so long
c) Could the damage have occured at a different time? On the balance of probabilities there is a 1/120 chance it happened on the day alleged. Does that win the balance of probabilities argument? the threshold is nowehere near to being even considered for employment law not withstanding the fact you are unaware of the policies of the company involved.
graylag said:
You clearly believe the OP, I don’t. However, what I’m saying is that the employer has more information than we have and the opportunity to question further. That’s what they will be doing and then deciding if there is a case to answer from an employment perspective.
I am going off what he has posted. so with the information he has provided, on the balance of probabilites I think the BMW owner is chancing it and trying to get the OP to pay for damage that could have occured at any time and any location in 4 months before they have done something about it and most likely matey with manager who is pulling a few strings. ps he also comes across as a very poor manager with very few HR skills if this is the way he goes about it
Oakey said:
So in conclusion
The CCTV footage isn't clear enough to show faces.
The CCTV cameras don't cover all of the car park.
Anybody could have walked past that car 4 months ago.
That OP's car was next leaving the car park doesn't necessarily mean he was the person seen walking past the car.
They won't provide any footage of the person in the CCTV for OP to admit or deny it was him.
Yes but Judge Rinder thinks the OP should pack a toothbrush The CCTV footage isn't clear enough to show faces.
The CCTV cameras don't cover all of the car park.
Anybody could have walked past that car 4 months ago.
That OP's car was next leaving the car park doesn't necessarily mean he was the person seen walking past the car.
They won't provide any footage of the person in the CCTV for OP to admit or deny it was him.
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Wednesday 12th December 12:18
Car-Matt said:
I also stand 100% by mine, all of my comments are based around the OP being innocent if you read them..........the company wont even be able to bring a disciplinary let alone it get to a tribunal as there is no evidence to suggest the OP did this as long as he is telling the truth and there are no previous incidents or history between the two individuals that hasn't been disclosed by the OP
If they did discipline him and go to a tribunal and dismiss him his appeal would be successful ( see the posted EAT information ) on the basis of a lack of evidence amongST other things.
That makes no sense. You discipline, dismiss and then the employee may appeal to a tribunal. You don’t go to a tribunal then dismiss them. This thread has got ridiculous now. If they did discipline him and go to a tribunal and dismiss him his appeal would be successful ( see the posted EAT information ) on the basis of a lack of evidence amongST other things.
Edited by Car-Matt on Wednesday 12th December 11:53
Edited by Car-Matt on Wednesday 12th December 11:53
I’m out for no other reason than you and Pavarotti seem incapable of seeing that there will be another side to this story and probably a lot more information that the OP hasn’t furnished us with.
Plenty of others on here are agreeing with my thoughts on whether he did it or not.
I havent read all of the replies as a lot of it seems to have, in true PH style, gone slightly off piste. So apologies if already asked and answered....
Why is he so sure that it happened in the car park? I'd like to think I'd notice new scratches on my car when approaching, but in the rush to work in a morning I could conceivably miss them. More likely to be jealous summers walking past his home or a neighbour angry at his inconsiderate parking.
That would be my argument. Especially as no one is actually seen scratching his car.
Why is he so sure that it happened in the car park? I'd like to think I'd notice new scratches on my car when approaching, but in the rush to work in a morning I could conceivably miss them. More likely to be jealous summers walking past his home or a neighbour angry at his inconsiderate parking.
That would be my argument. Especially as no one is actually seen scratching his car.
graylag said:
That makes no sense. You discipline, dismiss and then the employee may appeal to a tribunal. You don’t go to a tribunal then dismiss them. This thread has got ridiculous now.
I’m out for no other reason than you and Pavarotti seem incapable of seeing that there will be another side to this story and probably a lot more information that the OP hasn’t furnished us with.
Plenty of others on here are agreeing with my thoughts on whether he did it or not.
Go on the fact and you cant come to your ITV drama conclusion. Also you dont read posts properly and jump to conclusions.I’m out for no other reason than you and Pavarotti seem incapable of seeing that there will be another side to this story and probably a lot more information that the OP hasn’t furnished us with.
Plenty of others on here are agreeing with my thoughts on whether he did it or not.
of course there is more to this but you have already decided what happened
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.
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.
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.
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 costPrevious 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.
graylag said:
I’m out for no other reason than you and Pavarotti seem incapable of seeing that there will be another side to this story and probably a lot more information that the OP hasn’t furnished us with.
Plenty of others on here are agreeing with my thoughts on whether he did it or not.
You are incapable of reading what is written, I have advised OP on the basis that he didn't do it and there is no previous history or non disclosure. i've stated this several times yet you choose to ignore.Plenty of others on here are agreeing with my thoughts on whether he did it or not.
I have offered no opinion on whether i think the OP is telling the truth or not and nor will I
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.My colleague's car got damaged a scratch in our works carpark and the company would not even entertain talking to the alleged person CCTV was blocked by storage of items. They just said you park at your own risk tough. Turns out a fairly senior and long-standing manager had her front bumper ripped off by a careless person years earlier and again company stayed completely neutral and the lady claimed on her insurance.
Only upshot was both members of staff refused to park in the factory carpark and would only park in the office staff section and couldn't be moaned at to move their cars. I would have to move my company car if we had vistors.
surveyor_101 said:
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.
My colleague's car got damaged a scratch in our works carpark and the company would not even entertain talking to the alleged person CCTV was blocked by storage of items. They just said you park at your own risk tough. Turns out a fairly senior and long-standing manager had her front bumper ripped off by a careless person years earlier and again company stayed completely neutral and the lady claimed on her insurance.
Only upshot was both members of staff refused to park in the factory carpark and would only park in the office staff section and couldn't be moaned at to move their cars. I would have to move my company car if we had vistors.
I am on about the BMW drivers insurance will pay for damage if he claimed on it. I reckon he just doesnt want toMy colleague's car got damaged a scratch in our works carpark and the company would not even entertain talking to the alleged person CCTV was blocked by storage of items. They just said you park at your own risk tough. Turns out a fairly senior and long-standing manager had her front bumper ripped off by a careless person years earlier and again company stayed completely neutral and the lady claimed on her insurance.
Only upshot was both members of staff refused to park in the factory carpark and would only park in the office staff section and couldn't be moaned at to move their cars. I would have to move my company car if we had vistors.
Nothing to do with the OP at all
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?
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.
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.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.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff