really struggling with this one

[219]

If she's leaving anyway , it would be worth parking the van up at a 'secure location' and telling them they can have it back as soon as they've paid her the monies she was wrongfully made to pay out .

 

[gaz6148]

If she's leaving anyway , it would be worth parking the van up at a 'secure location' and telling them they can have it back as soon as they've paid her the monies she was wrongfully made to pay out .

ha ha you read my mind

 

[crockers]

If she's leaving anyway , it would be worth parking the van up at a 'secure location' and telling them they can have it back as soon as they've paid her the monies she was wrongfully made to pay out .

Trouble is that is theft in the eyes of the law and wont achieve anything..........well it will make you feel better for a few hours until Mr Plod knocks on your door.

 

[gaz6148]

Trouble is that is theft in the eyes of the law and wont achieve anything..........well it will make you feel better for a few hours until Mr Plod knocks on your door.

Thats may well be, but it will give me enough time to take the wing/ bonnet and windscreen out as they belong to my daughter, and she has an invoice to prove it

 

[219]

Trouble is that is theft in the eyes of the law and wont achieve anything..........well it will make you feel better for a few hours until Mr Plod knocks on your door.

NOT if you write to them and tell them it is being held as a surety against payment . Make it clear that the vehicle will be released on payment of monies due , and that you contend what they did amounted to extortion . By all means tell the police up front that the vehicle is being held as surety against a claim .

Theft only applies if you intend to permanently deprive them of their property , which is not the case here .

As above , it is a recognised legal process in Scots law that you can withhold or immobilise property as a surety against a claim .

 

[rf065]

NOT if you write to them and tell them it is being held as a surety against payment . Make it clear that the vehicle will be released on payment of monies due , and that you contend what they did amounted to extortion . By all means tell the police up front that the vehicle is being held as surety against a claim .

Theft only applies if you intend to permanently deprive them of their property , which is not the case here .

As above , it is a recognised legal process in Scots law that you can withhold or immobilise property as a surety against a claim .

Agree with everything above. I've actually witnessed the police being called to a garage to remove an angry customer who would not pay the bill, and therefore the garage would not release the car. After the police had the situation explained to them, they told the guy to pay up if he wanted the car or if he continued to protest he would be arrested.

Russ

 

[flango]

We have similiar wording in our contract but its mainly to do with damage we are responsible for, ie i wasnt looking properly and backed into another truck, lorry drivers type excuses
Lynall

This and the incident reported by the OP is not legal in the UK, damage to company vehicles cannot be recovered from an individual when driving a company owned vehicle, the onus is totally on the company even if it is stipulated in the T&C of contract it can't be enforced and i'll give you a real example defended by a lawyer friend of mine in court but this was a couple of years ago.

An employee at a company had a spate of accidents in his company car, some of them expensive cars, Jaguar, BMW this was ignored to a certain extent because the guy was a bloody good salesman and made the company a fortune but was rewarded for it with nice cars and good bonus's. Anyway after the 11th bump the company got fed up and wrote to him changing the T&C in his contract that if he had anymore prangs then he would have to pay for the company car damage himself (There is no way a company can get out of the third party liability) then came the 12th bump they insisted he pay, he told them where to get off and long story short it ended up in court. The ruling was there was no way the company could make him pay for the damage to there vehicle, they were told it should have been adequately insured (They actuallly self insured) and that they accepted the risk when they employed this individual and if this employee presented a higher risk to the company's property then this was not an appropriate way of dealing with it. So he won.

The company then took some specialist legal motoring advice and what they did was impose a personal insurance excess on him of £1000 (perfectly legal this time) not sure if he is still with the company though

I would get up to date legal advice as I think this practice still can't be enforced.

 

[bennesspipers]

As the Romans said, Nil Illegitimus Carborundum !

 

[SSBB]

Trouble is that is theft in the eyes of the law and wont achieve anything..........well it will make you feel better for a few hours until Mr Plod knocks on your door.

Its only theft if you 'Dishonestly appropriate' with intent to 'permanently deprive' the owner.

 

[trapperjohn]

As the Romans said, Nil Illegitimus Carborundum

Illegitimi non carborundum is a mock-Latin aphorism jokingly taken to mean "don't let the *******s grind you down".

OK, so I Wiki'ed it. Dead on tho. Keep on Truckin. No way should your daughter have to pay for any damage to the company veh. God life is a **** at times. Good people should be upstanding to support your daughter. Situations like this is what Trades Unions were made out of. I work hard with the partnership in my workplace and do you know what? It really helps to have a strong partnership that cuts both ways. Forward thinking unions are great. (I now expect heaps of incoming from staunch sides of both sides!!)

 

[Dieselman]

I can't see there being any contractual clause that makes a driver pay for a non-fault accident, irrespective of whether the company pursue the other party for settlement.

It sounds as though the Company are attempting to invoke an excess clause for at-fault damage as they feel they cannot pursue the cyclist.
If there is no contractual clause for excess clauses then she should ask for the repair bill to be paid by the Co as they have no right to make her pay.

Your daughter needs to pursue either the Company or cyclist. Really it's the Company she should pursue as they are both the owner and insurer of said vehicle and they in turn should pursue the cyclist.

 

[trapperjohn]

Dead on. Dieselman.

 

[cleverdicky]

Did they even have insurance on the van?

 

[PXW]

This and the incident reported by the OP is not legal in the UK, damage to company vehicles cannot be recovered from an individual when driving a company owned vehicle, the onus is totally on the company even if it is stipulated in the T&C of contract it can't be enforced and i'll give you a real example defended by a lawyer friend of mine in court but this was a couple of years ago.

An employee at a company had a spate of accidents in his company car, some of them expensive cars, Jaguar, BMW this was ignored to a certain extent because the guy was a bloody good salesman and made the company a fortune but was rewarded for it with nice cars and good bonus's. Anyway after the 11th bump the company got fed up and wrote to him changing the T&C in his contract that if he had anymore prangs then he would have to pay for the company car damage himself (There is no way a company can get out of the third party liability) then came the 12th bump they insisted he pay, he told them where to get off and long story short it ended up in court. The ruling was there was no way the company could make him pay for the damage to there vehicle, they were told it should have been adequately insured (They actuallly self insured) and that they accepted the risk when they employed this individual and if this employee presented a higher risk to the company's property then this was not an appropriate way of dealing with it. So he won.

The company then took some specialist legal motoring advice and what they did was impose a personal insurance excess on him of £1000 (perfectly legal this time) not sure if he is still with the company though

I would get up to date legal advice as I think this practice still can't be enforced.

Interesting, though as you say the OP needs advice specific to his daughter. I wonder whether the fatal flaw for the company you describe might have been the attempt to change the contract - it can amount to a unilateral variation of contract, which is unenforceable (and often overlooked by large companies who seem to think that their staff will just do whatever they say). Could the case have been different if the original contract had stipulated the liability?

Regardless, the OP's daughter seems to have been very harshly dealt with, and I'd personally be more inclined to seek recovery against the company than the cyclist - if only because the cyclist's insurers won't just pay up if they think that the claimant wasn't obliged to incur the costs - and I'm not sure how compelling a copy of the 'company procedures' would be for that.

 

[Lugy]

If ever there was a case for cyclists having insurance this has to be right up there.

I can't see there being any contractual clause that makes a driver pay for a non-fault accident, irrespective of whether the company pursue the other party for settlement.

It sounds as though the Company are attempting to invoke an excess clause for at-fault damage as they feel they cannot pursue the cyclist.
If there is no contractual clause for excess clauses then she should ask for the repair bill to be paid by the Co as they have no right to make her pay.

Your daughter needs to pursue either the Company or cyclist. Really it's the Company she should pursue as they are both the owner and insurer of said vehicle and they in turn should pursue the cyclist.

Best advice so far IMO That's what insurance is for.