Constable must pay for van damage

PARISH officials can be sued in an individual capacity, the Petty Debts Court has ruled.
Castel constable Barry Paint was told he must pay £200 for the damage caused to Steve Ogier’s van when he supervised moving it by tractor in the car park next to Checkers Xpress, Cobo, in June.
His advocate, Mark Dunster, said Deputy Paint was prepared to pay that amount.
But Mr Ogier said that would not cover his costs and he will consider his position during a seven-day period ordered by assistant-Magistrate Cherry McMillen.
She said that if both wished to follow her advice they could do so and the matter would be withdrawn.
But if either or both chose not to, she would make a formal judgement and an appeal could be made to the Royal Court.
The groundbreaking case is back in court again on Wednesday.(from thisisguernsey)

Bizarre!!

The Parish Constable appears to be doing his best for the parish, the environment and the general appearance of the area and he is fined!!

Surely the question is, Why was that 'heap of old junk' - which was allegedly a 'fire hazard' left in the car park anyway? Why was the apparent owner not prosecuted for having a dangerous vehicle or for littering?

Justice........ ha!!!

You can't do that,it would infringe his "Human rights", sacrosanct.
It would be against the Data protection Act.And I'm sure 'Elf & safety would be involved.BOLA BLAH BLAH.

Human Rights my !!!!!!








.

He was doing his duty as a parish official so the parish should pay.

Wonder what the court case costs!!!!

What were the circumstances behind the removal, was the van illegally parked and if it was what is being done to the van owner? did the deputy exceed his authority and was he negligent during the removal?. There are professionals that will move a vehicle without causing damage but it may be that the parish decided to do it themselves, obviously they are well qualified, I mean they had a tractor!!!

Look at it as you are driving down a narrow lane and two cars are parked illegally on either side of the road allowing just enough room to pass, barely enough room, you are left with a decision, move the vehicles legally using the law or try to squeeze through.
Pay your money and take your chance.
If you try to squeeze through and damage a car you are liable for the damage even though they were parked illegally.

That is why I would like to know the full circumstances and what the deputy was allowed to do under the law. He may have a right to move the van but must do so without causing damage, which is fair enough. Silly as it sounds everyone has rights even those who do wrong, like it or lump it and as you are all well aware, that is life people.

Of course he ought to be able to be sued in a personal capacity, the alternative is that the public have to pick up the tab for any misdemeanors that parish officials make, which wouldn't be right. Just like a police officer can be prosecuted for offences committed during the course of his duties, so should others be held responsible for their actions without trying to hide behind their public office.

Only in Guernsey!!! LOL
Cause in Australia things get even sillier...
The Aborigine whant the "work for the dole" rule revised for them...
...
cause there are no jobs for them!!! :x

is this the car park that no body knows who owns ? In which case, he does not have any right, IMO, to move or tamper with any vehicle or property there, if it is proved that the land is owned by the alleged owner, then mr Paint has no right to be there.
How can he decide to move /tamper with a van, when no proof of it being on parish land exists?
I know this is detracting from the original thread, but how can this area be a disc parking zone, when the states/parish cannot prove proof of ownership?
Maybe it is a case of someone thinking that being a deputy or a parish official is a lot more important than it really is, not the first time that parish power has gone to peoples heads.

Why don't the States just slap a compulsory purchase order on the land in question, give him double what he paid for it. He gets 100% profit and problem is solved.

Didn't he acquire the land in question from his mother? If so, I very much doubt whether a market value was paid, which would render that suggestion largely redundant.

My own feelings towards this individual is that he is a lousy parasite who is trying to hold businesses to ransom, however the use of a compulsory purchase order is a dangerous precedent to set, and one that could be all too easily abused by some power crazed official at Frossard House.

It's a very difficult problem to overcome, however I would be interested to know what action has or hasn't been taken by whoever owns Checkers these days. Surely they're the ones with potentially the most to use, and they're not exactly short of funds so why can't they buy this nefarious individual out?

I wonder how often a Police Man pays for damage he causes while on duty, or even employees when doing work for their firm, if the damage something the firm usually has to pay so why should a parish constable not be treated the same.

Techno', I read somewhere that he paid £1, so it would only cost you £2 to solve the problem.

Cheaper than going to court.

wayside wrote:I wonder how often a Police Man pays for damage he causes while on duty, or even employees when doing work for their firm, if the damage something the firm usually has to pay so why should a parish constable not be treated the same.

Not knowing the answer, but common sense would suggest that the parish will pick up the tab as he was on 'parish business' and that the Deputy will not be putting his hand in his own pocket!!

Which comes back down to 'jolly old Jo Public's money being used!!!!!

Yep!! You got it!! :(









.

Dell wrote:

wayside wrote:I wonder how often a Police Man pays for damage he causes while on duty, or even employees when doing work for their firm, if the damage something the firm usually has to pay so why should a parish constable not be treated the same.

Not knowing the answer, but common sense would suggest that the parish will pick up the tab as he was on 'parish business' and that the Deputy will not be putting his hand in his own pocket!!

The Parish may not pick up the tab on this one if the Deputy was acting outside his authority. It should pick up the tab if he was genuinely going about what he thought was the correct thing to do but if he was negligent in the way he carried out his duties then the Parish may very well say "tough, you made the error you pay for it". If the area is a disc zone then the ownership should have been established otherwise parking tickets would not be valid if issued there cause they can only be issued on public property.

Fair point plimmerton, and well made!!







.

ISLANDERS might now think twice before offering their services to the parish after it was confirmed that officials could be sued in an individual capacity while carrying out their duties, two constables have warned.
Barry Cash, junior constable for St Peter Port, and Chris Singer, senior constable for Torteval, responded with their concerns after the Petty Debts Court ruled that parish officials could be held personally liable for actions taken within their roles.
Castel junior constable Barry Paint (pictured) has been told to pay £200 for damage caused to Steve Ogier’s van when he supervised it being moved by a tractor in the car park next to Checkers Express, Cobo, in June. Deputy Paint had considered the vehicle, which was full of tyres and wood, to be a hazard following a threat from someone that they would set it on fire.
It is feared the landmark case could have far-reaching implications for the parishes.
‘I think it will make people think twice about putting themselves forward for parish roles, which would be such a shame because there are some very good people who do,’ said Mr Cash.
‘They are not positions that people rush to put themselves forward for, either.’
Mr Cash said officials needed to know what they could and could not do while performing their duties. (from thisisguernsey)

GD wrote:
ISLANDERS might now think twice before offering their services to the parish after it was confirmed that officials could be sued in an individual capacity while carrying out their duties, two constables have warned.
Barry Cash, junior constable for St Peter Port, and Chris Singer, senior constable for Torteval, responded with their concerns after the Petty Debts Court ruled that parish officials could be held personally liable for actions taken within their roles.
Castel junior constable Barry Paint (pictured) has been told to pay £200 for damage caused to Steve Ogier’s van when he supervised it being moved by a tractor in the car park next to Checkers Express, Cobo, in June. Deputy Paint had considered the vehicle, which was full of tyres and wood, to be a hazard following a threat from someone that they would set it on fire.
It is feared the landmark case could have far-reaching implications for the parishes.
‘I think it will make people think twice about putting themselves forward for parish roles, which would be such a shame because there are some very good people who do,’ said Mr Cash.
‘They are not positions that people rush to put themselves forward for, either.’
Mr Cash said officials needed to know what they could and could not do while performing their duties. (from thisisguernsey)

The above editorial is rather poor to say the least. What the petty debts court stated is not covered in detail so it leaves loads of questions unanswered, what does it mean "actions taken within their roles". Every car is a potential fire hazard so will Mr Paint have them all towed? I would like to know if Mr Cash has understood/read the full transcript of the court hearing or is he just supposing (much like I am cause I have not read it). I suppose the difference between the two of us is I am not talking in the media as if I have read and understood the transcript.

Personally I would have no problem standing for deputy and continue to carry out my duties on behalf of the Parish but I would carry them out with care and due diligence. If someone undertakes a parish duty and does not understand what he can and can't do before hand then he should not be a parish official, to do something without prior knowledge is verging on arrogance, "I can because I am ........."

However fair play to Mr Paint idf he is going to cough up to cover his error, whatever that error was.

wayside wrote:I wonder how often a Police Man pays for damage he causes while on duty, or even employees when doing work for their firm, if the damage something the firm usually has to pay so why should a parish constable not be treated the same.

If I walked out of my office door and decided to remove a car from a space outside, just because it had some wood in the back, and then caused some damage to it, I can't see my firm picking up the tab. The guy's obviously acted without thinking it through properly, you can't just wander around removing vehicles from all over the place because (in your opinion) they're a fire hazard. Either the police or the fire brigade ought to have been consulted, then a proper removal firm brought it to remove the vehicle if it had been deemed necessary. As opposed to calling someone in with a tractor to simply drag the vehicle away. He deserved what he got.

I am the owner of the van in question. I think the truth of the case has been twisted. I would therefore like the public to be able to see a few of my original documents and statements that I took into court, as well as my original letter to the press. The documents are a little rough around the edges, but I wanted people to see them exactly as I took them into court, for information only.

I hope you find them interesting. Images of original documents

BTW, I got a cheque from Barry Paint's Advocate. The accompanying letter stated the cheque was on behalf of "cc Barry Paint and the Constables of the Parish", which seems to imply that the money did not come from Barry Paint's pocket after all, but from the tax payers.

Sincerely,

Steve Ogier

karma wrote:Which comes back down to 'jolly old Jo Public's money being used!!!!!

Just as I thought would be the outcome - why is the meaning of truth not understood by anybody in the 'governing bodies' or it that something that is another 'double standard' As 'Jo Public' we get fined at best - jailed at worst, for telling porkies.....but it is obviously not two way traffic!!!

Thank you for putting the record straight Steve

Technophobe

If you were sent by your firm to do a job and you cocked it up I doubt you would put your hand in your pocket and pay for the damage.