Employee Damaged Vehicle

[DariusCool]

Hello. Not after a definite answer but more of people's experiences.

An employee has damaged their vehicle they use for field service work. It's more cosmetic but it is significant.

What's the general feeling here. I understand that something should be in their contract if the company is to make them pay for it.
How have other people's employees reacted if they were made to pay etc?

 

[The Byre]

Who actually owns the vehicle, who was at fault for the damage and was the damage incurred only in pursuance of company business?

 

[Newchodge]

Insurance? That is what it is for.

 

[DariusCool]

Company owns the vehicle
Employee misjudged and scraped a wall
Was whilst carrying out company business

Insurance is obvious but the damage isn't enough to justify the cost

I have heard of some companies offering a bonus for NOT damaging a vehicle during a certain period

 

[The Byre]

Scraped a wall??? That's just a couple of hundred quid, tops!

Anyway, it's the company wot pays! When I was White Van Man, I had seven accidents in one year, mostly someone else's fault, but not always. When you are driving non-stop for twelve hours, accidents just happen!

If an employee keeps on having silly fender-benders, the company can always show that individual the door.

 

[Gecko001]

Insurance is obvious but the damage isn't enough to justify the cost

Does this mean that you are not going to make an insurance claim as the cost of repair is less than the insurance access?

 

[Newchodge]

You should never expect an employee to cover the cost of a business expense. If you think the accident was a result of culpable negligence, then deal with it by taking disciplinary action. Your vehicle, your insurance, your cost.

 

[DariusCool]

It's not damage that necessarily requires immediate attention but has altered the value of the asset.

Purpose of the post is to gauge the feelings of others who have been in the same situation. I don't believe there is a right and wrong but determining the pros and cons of the companies actions

No action and the employee may not take the damage seriously and not improve
Charging the employee is likely to leave them disgruntled etc

Thanks you all for your input though

 

[The Byre]

I don't believe there is a right and wrong but determining the pros and cons of the companies actions.

The legal situation is very clear - company car, company business, company damage, company cost.

 

[Gecko001]

It's not damage that necessarily requires immediate attention but has altered the value of the asset.

I know that this is outside of what you are asking, but I would get it fixed as if you don't, the employee will think that you do not take what he has done seriously as you say. Get it fixed and bear the cost or make an insurance claim if the cost is over the insurance access.

Note you have to inform the insurer anyway even if you are not making a claim or it could invalidate your insurance.

 

[Tom Smart]

I would just accept the cost, accidents happen. Would probably cost you more to train a new employee.

 

[patientlady]

Hi Darius
I worked for a well known pest control company a few years ago as a sales rep. Someone hit me in the side. I reported it and the company deducted from my salary that month the excess of £250.00 . I dropped the car back that evening, and popped the keys through the letter box, with a note!

 

[paulears]

Accidents are, well, accidents. negligence is negligence. I'd make a note, and then if it happens again, that worries me. I get people break equipment all the time. They rarely do it on purpose. It's just a business expense.

 

[STDFR33]

What does the company policy say about company vehicles?

Not many people go out with the intention of smashing their heavy lump of metal into something. Most 'accidents' are in fact driver error.

I've seen many employers hold the employee liable up to the value of the insurance excess.
If the cost of damages exceed the excess, then it's up to the company whether they stand the cost or go through the insurers (and push up their premiums).

Of course the easy answer is to go through your insurers, but continued claims will increase your premium.

This case sounds like a case of putting it down to experience and getting company policies sorted.

 

[Krystsina]

Maybe my business is too small to be compared with yours (my family owns a restaurant), but we agreed with our waiters that they will pay for every single glass/plate/jug if they break it. We have hand-made and very expensive tableware, and we can't buy 10 glasses every single week anymore just because someone doesn't really care if it breaks or not.

 

[Newchodge]

I hope you are paying your staff more than minimum wage.

How do you establish who broke what?

When you say that you agreed with the waiters, what did you give them in return?

 

[TheGaffer]

Maybe my business is too small to be compared with yours (my family owns a restaurant), but we agreed with our waiters that they will pay for every single glass/plate/jug if they break it. We have hand-made and very expensive tableware, and we can't buy 10 glasses every single week anymore just because someone doesn't really care if it breaks or not.

I am surprised you have any staff.

 

[Krystsina]

I am surprised you have any staff.

You shouldn't be

 

[Krystsina]

I hope you are paying your staff more than minimum wage.

How do you establish who broke what?

When you say that you agreed with the waiters, what did you give them in return?

For sure, they are getting much more than minimum wage, that's why they don't take this agreement as too painful for their wallets.

We have transparent communication + another owner is most of the time at the place, so it is not difficult to establish what was broken and by whom. Usually waiters come by themselves to say what they broke. I'll repeat, it started to happen too much, that's why we came up with this agreement.

Considering your last question - I don't really understand it. What should I give in return for the collective agreement on it?

 

[Newchodge]

Generally a contractual change, which this must be, involves each side getting something from the agreement. You get reimbursed for broken items, the waiters get - what? if they get nothing, it is not a agreement, it is an imposition.

 

[Krystsina]

Generally a contractual change, which this must be, involves each side getting something from the agreement. You get reimbursed for broken items, the waiters get - what? if they get nothing, it is not a agreement, it is an imposition.

We don't have any problems with it from the legal point of view (everything was done according to the law by our lawyer). You can call it an imposition, I call it mutual agreement.

 

[TheGaffer]

Fair play for getting them to agree to it. You must be paying them a cracking wage for them to accept that.

I have a lot of experience in the hospitality sector having managed numerous bars and restaurants and I don't think any of the people I have ever employed would of agreed to something like. Breakages are part and parcel of the job and a daily occurrence.

 

[Krystsina]

Fair play for getting them to agree to it. You must be paying them a cracking wage for them to accept that.

I have a lot of experience in the hospitality sector having managed numerous bars and restaurants and I don't think any of the people I have ever employed would of agreed to something like. Breakages are part and parcel of the job and a daily occurrence.

Well, yes. The salaries are really good. And people are good as well when it comes to basic common sense. I know that breakage should be considered as the company's expenses, and I agree with it unless it doesn't happen every day, 10 times per day. With such constancy, we would spend everything we earn on buying new tableware every day

Of course, when it is not you who pays for breakage, you don't really care if you break something. But when it comes to your own pocket, you start being much more attentive with such things. It is still to early to make conclusions, but I feel that people started to be more accurate with things they use.

I think it is real to find people who agree to such conditions if you provide great salaries + it is very prestigious to work at your place.

 

[Plumb Spares Direct]

This issue used to drive me nuts in my previous business in the service sector with 15 vans. I naively thought that everyone had the same morals as me but soon realised that is n ot the case. Without a doubt, the majority of employees who drive company vans do not treat them with any respect at all. Our biggest and most expensive problems were the slow burn ones, not the obvious damage caused by 'accidents' but the way they drove the vehicles which resulted in very expensive repairs. In hindsight I would have bought a share in a clutch company! The other one was seized engines through running low on oil etc even though they were regularly serviced. Anyway, you got me started and I' waffling now! We took every incident through our disciplinary procedure and investigated it to establish negligence or otherwise. I'm not convinced it changed anything as it was always very hard to prove anything but it made me feel better. I don't think you can enforce deductions from wages without a written policy and absolute proof but if you have documented incidents on file at least you can establish a trend with a particular individual

 

[ffox]

I have heard of some companies offering a bonus for NOT damaging a vehicle during a certain period

You certainly cam implement a 'no claims bonus'. Positive encouragement always did work better than enforcement. Do it yearly and make the award public by placing a list of those paid in the staff rest room, or locker room. You'll be able to make it a worthwhile amount from what you save on excess payments and reduced insurance premiums.

 

[Karllacey]

I understand sometimes the employee is responsible for the excess of the damage and if it is none-fault (not on this occasion of course) then when it is settled they would be re-imbursed.

However the above needs to be in their contract. If it is not, check mate - game over you pay it