Re: Constable must pay for van damage

by plimmerton811 Wed 15 Apr 2009, 7:19 am

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.

by technophobe Wed 15 Apr 2009, 8:10 am

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.

by Steve Ogier Sun 19 Apr 2009, 12:56 pm

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

by karma Sun 19 Apr 2009, 1:09 pm

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

by wayside Sun 19 Apr 2009, 4:01 pm

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.

by kat Sun 19 Apr 2009, 4:28 pm

i think it is about time the law was changed so those in power can remove cars like this
too often we see cars lettered along the roadside[grosse houge is one place] that no one can remove them because they fear they will be sued
an easy earner for those who dump those cars and want money for them
DEPUTIES CHANGE THE LAW NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by karma Sun 19 Apr 2009, 7:58 pm

wayside wrote: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.

Certainly not if I was fortunate enough to have a whole parish's worth of revenue on my side......

by technophobe Mon 20 Apr 2009, 8:21 am

karma wrote:
wayside wrote: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.

Certainly not if I was fortunate enough to have a whole parish's worth of revenue on my side......

That would depend Wayside. And I can't imagine my firm telling me to commit an illegal act either.

Face facts, Deputy Paint made an error of judgement in deciding to remove the van in the first place, then another error in choosing to do so with a tractor, yet another error when then leaving it in a dangerous state in an open area, and then the constables try to threaten Steve Ogier with a fabricated assault charge. This just goes to show how a bit of perceived power can go to people's heads. It's too far removed from the attitude of the police in the recent G20 demonstrations. They think they can do what they like, then when they get caught they refuse to take any responsibility for their actions.

by wayside Mon 20 Apr 2009, 11:29 am

Yes he did make an error of judgement, but he was told to remove abandoned vehicles that were dumped there to block off the carpark, his error was aparently assuming the van was one of the abandoned vehicles, which seems to habe been in such a state that its doubtful it was legal on the roads as it was still there months later and it was not worth spending £200 to fix it.

Over the last 30 years I have had a few occassions where my past staff have damaged peoples property while on site, mostly through being neglectful, I have never had any of them offer to pay, I had to pay myself as they were working for me.

by Sponsored content