Kenny1975:
I think Scanny has a right to be ■■■■■■ off, ok he went really over the top.
Pollocks are responsable as the registared keepers, yet they don’t know who is driving their trucks. They would have had to send the agency details and state who was driving the truck. When i was working for an agency some places have numerous guys from the same agency working.
So what do they just contact the agency say one of your guys was driving a truck went through a camera, without giving any details of who was driving it. Pollocks must have stated Scannys name.
So i think this shows Pollocks aint doing much checking when they have given the wrong details of who was driving the truck to the agency. Doubt it was malicious but its a bit of a f-up.
If an agency driver was involved in a hit and run, would Pollocks just say to the police well no idea who was driving just some guy from the agency would that suffice.
Secondly i think the agency have been shown to be completly useless and most at fault. Pollocks don’t know Scanny, easier to make a mistake. But the agency also don’t seem to have a clue who was working where and when. If i were working for an agency i would expect them to contact me first and ask me about it. Was i driving this vehicle, was i doing this route, check details before sending my details away anywhere.
If i was Scanny i’d be ■■■■■■ off since both the agency and pollocks dont really seem tto know their arse from their elbow with keeping track of who is driving what. Ok i wouldnt be as paranoid and i wouldnt be seeking vengance. but i would be ■■■■■■ off at having to write letters and deal with the police because two other proffesional companies both screwed up.
spoken by another sock who doesnt even know where he loives himself…Glasgowish…
Hohoho how amusing, guess i deserve it for questioning your mates company, but guess he is too busy to know or care who drives his motors.
just think ok scanny was wrong over the top, basically slandering a company. but think its wrong that two proffesional companies can make this mistake.
yeah its no big deal and will get sorted, but i’d be ■■■■■■ off two companies and neither one has bothered to check. i work away all week and if i came home to a NIP and had to spend a morning on the phone, looking for proof, writing a letter and everything else on my time off i’d be ■■■■■■ off because no one can be bothered to check the facts.
think everyone involved with this is at fault including scanny for his OP’s
Kenny1975:
yeah its no big deal and will get sorted, but i’d be ■■■■■■ off two companies and neither one has bothered to check. i work away all week and if i came home to a NIP and had to spend a morning on the phone, looking for proof, writing a letter and everything else on my time off i’d be ■■■■■■ off because no one can be bothered to check the facts.
But, if at the time the agency called scanny and said a ticket was on the way for the date and time for a Pollock vehicle scanny, instead of going straight on the offensive, had said, - “Hang on I wasn’t in Pollock’s for that shift, better check again,” surely the whole thing would have been sorted with the minimum of fuss?
Kenny1975:
yeah its no big deal and will get sorted, but i’d be ■■■■■■ off two companies and neither one has bothered to check. i work away all week and if i came home to a NIP and had to spend a morning on the phone, looking for proof, writing a letter and everything else on my time off i’d be ■■■■■■ off because no one can be bothered to check the facts.
But, if at the time the agency called scanny and said a ticket was on the way for the date and time for a Pollock vehicle scanny, instead of going straight on the offensive, had said, - “Hang on I wasn’t in Pollock’s for that shift, better check again,” surely the whole thing would have been sorted with the minimum of fuss?
If Pollocks had been keeping correct records, like they are required to, then it would not have even got to Scanny and this thread would not have even been started, would it?
Kenny1975:
yeah its no big deal and will get sorted, but i’d be ■■■■■■ off two companies and neither one has bothered to check. i work away all week and if i came home to a NIP and had to spend a morning on the phone, looking for proof, writing a letter and everything else on my time off i’d be ■■■■■■ off because no one can be bothered to check the facts.
But, if at the time the agency called scanny and said a ticket was on the way for the date and time for a Pollock vehicle scanny, instead of going straight on the offensive, had said, - “Hang on I wasn’t in Pollock’s for that shift, better check again,” surely the whole thing would have been sorted with the minimum of fuss?
If Pollocks had been keeping correct records, like they are required to, then it would not have even got to Scanny and this thread would not have even been started, would it?
the most senseble and accurate post of this whole m,larjky if u ask me
Kenny1975:
yeah its no big deal and will get sorted, but i’d be ■■■■■■ off two companies and neither one has bothered to check. i work away all week and if i came home to a NIP and had to spend a morning on the phone, looking for proof, writing a letter and everything else on my time off i’d be ■■■■■■ off because no one can be bothered to check the facts.
But, if at the time the agency called scanny and said a ticket was on the way for the date and time for a Pollock vehicle scanny, instead of going straight on the offensive, had said, - “Hang on I wasn’t in Pollock’s for that shift, better check again,” surely the whole thing would have been sorted with the minimum of fuss?
If Pollocks had been keeping correct records, like they are required to, then it would not have even got to Scanny and this thread would not have even been started, would it?
True, Pollock’s should have known which driver it was and advised the agency accordingly, so they could advise the driver of the impending NIP. However when they didn’t do that because they seemed not to know who was driving their vehicle and the agency then wrongly called scanny it could still have been nipped in the bud then with minimum fuss. Putting aside the fact Pollock’s don’t seem to have an accurate record of who drives their vehicles, it was the agency who got it wrong in saying it was scanny driving at the time, Pollock’s didn’t know who it was so the only people who could have decided it was scanny are the agency. If he had then pointed out he wasn’t they would surely have checked and discovered the mistake.
He doesn’t seem to have taken that easy step and instead launched Operation Scanny Storm.
Ah, But, lets just say the agency had 2 drivers in Pollocks that day, the agency would be very unlikely to know who was driving which vehicle, that information would be with either the driver or the company, the agency should have nothing to do with this really (and I am the last person to defend agencies normally).
smcaul:
Ah, But, lets just say the agency had 2 drivers in Pollocks that day, the agency would be very unlikely to know who was driving which vehicle, that information would be with either the driver or the company, the agency should have nothing to do with this really (and I am the last person to defend agencies normally).
Again true, I agree with you 100% about the information Pollock’s should have, and the part they should have played. My point is scanny’s first knowledge of this was when the agency called him, regardless of whether they should have been involved or not they were at this stage, and he could have pointed out then he wasn’t in Pollock’s for that shift. Even if the agency didn’t know which of their drivers were driving which vehicles for Pollock’s, they would surely know who was and wasn’t working there at the time.
I bet Mr Boil feels well chuffed!!!
He has made a mountain out of a molehill and got it to run to 5 pages!!!
I have just sat and read this and to my mind, the whole blame lies with Mr Boil. Just cos you don’t like a comapny doesn’t mean you have to be this awkward. All Mr Boil has done is make himself look a prat.
smcaul:
Ah, But, lets just say the agency had 2 drivers in Pollocks that day, the agency would be very unlikely to know who was driving which vehicle, that information would be with either the driver or the company, the agency should have nothing to do with this really (and I am the last person to defend agencies normally).
Again true, I agree with you 100% about the information Pollock’s should have, and the part they should have played. My point is scanny’s first knowledge of this was when the agency called him, regardless of whether they should have been involved or not they were at this stage, and he could have pointed out then he wasn’t in Pollock’s for that shift. Even if the agency didn’t know which of their drivers were driving which vehicles for Pollock’s, they would surely know who was and wasn’t working there at the time.
the agency DID know i wasnt in that day. they had only supplied one driver that week and that was me on the thursday. the guy involved wasnt in this week which is why i still dont know why he gave me details. one of his colleagues has admitted that they shouldnt have given my details out but he cant say why they were.
the biggest question is why was i named in the first place? after being told they were wrong, they put my name down anyway. they gave my name knowing i wasnt driving which is perverting the course of justice. nuff said
TheBear:
I bet SMr Boil feels well chuffed!!!
He has made a mountain out of a molehill and got it to run to 5 pages!!!
I have just sat and read this and to my mind, the whole blame lies with Mr Boil. Just cos you don’t like a comapny doesn’t mean you have to be this awkward. All Mr Boil has done is make himself look a prat.
Come on Bear, that’s a bit much. I’ll be the first to admit that our friend Scanny has made a bit of a prat of himself here, but I can understand him being ■■■■■■ off. I would be too. So would you. Ok, so we would have dealt with it less…dramatically ( )…but to say the whole blame lies with him? That’s a blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I fear.
TheBear:
I bet SMr Boil feels well chuffed!!!
He has made a mountain out of a molehill and got it to run to 5 pages!!!
I have just sat and read this and to my mind, the whole blame lies with Mr Boil. Just cos you don’t like a comapny doesn’t mean you have to be this awkward. All Mr Boil has done is make himself look a prat.
Come on Bear, that’s a bit much. I’ll be the first to admit that our friend Scanny has made a bit of a prat of himself here, but I can understand him being ■■■■■■ off. I would be too. So would you. Ok, so we would have dealt with it less…dramatically ( )…but to say the whole blame lies with him? That’s a blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I fear.
I only say that, Lucy,is because we have all at one time or another been accused of something that was nothing to do with us, I am sure! so what did you or anyone else do■■? You state straight away ‘nothing to do with me’. Thats all he had to do at the very beginning when he got told he was getting a NIP. There would have been no post then … perhaps thats why he played it like he did… so he could create a major discussion on here… but I call that being an attention seeker.
if it had been genuine then i would let it be at that but the fact that my agency told them that i wasnt there that day throws that into serious dispute.
the agency DID know i wasnt in that day. they had only supplied one driver that week and that was me on the thursday. the guy involved wasnt in this week which is why i still dont know why he gave me details. one of his colleagues has admitted that they shouldnt have given my details out but he cant say why they were.
im not looking for compensation, merely teaching someone a lesson. no matter how big you think you are, there will always be someone who can stand up to you.
Whilst I will not agree with you Mr Bear , I will not disagree either
It just seems to me to be symptomatic of a wider issue. This is a typical example of what is wrong with the industry as a whole. With public perception as bad as it is the last thing we need is idiotic self destructive infighting. You can’t be a campaigning do good-er super professional and then pull a stunt like this. It is quite simply hypocrisy of the highest order.
i didnt ask for this thread to be escalated so how exactly is this a stunt? i didnt want to be named or involved with pollocks in the first place. this thread highlighted an injustice that some people seem to want to accept without question even though it would mean accepting a fine, points and a black mark against your reputation in which case, what are you doing driving trucks? find a job that means something to you
as for me personally, i dont have much compassion or emotion. things such as those get in the way of fighting for what i believe in. people agree or disagree, makes no difference to me. if you dont like it, stay out of it although i would have thought that most people could work that out for themselves. evidently not
nearly 4000 hits over a 'much to do about nothing’thread gota give it to you scanny,you can start a fight in an empty cyber-room!,but i do admire your black and white view of things its the best way to be even if you aint always right!id like to say it was an interesting story but…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I mean it was 