Persimmon contractor – vandalism of property

housestar

anselld wrote: »

They are only the face of Persimmon ( for what thats worth! ) when they are working. The rest of the time they are just another private individual.

Persimmon would find themselves at a tribunal PDQ if they dismissed based on the evidence of a third party about an offence outside and unconnected with work.

I understand that. What really upsets me is that we have been on and on at Persimmon to set a boundary at the end here and getting no where with their Customer Care Co-ordinator.

Our garden is a constant issue – we've had plants trampled before and had to clean up dog feces on more than one occasion. So the fact that it is now one of their own members of staff that has deliberately vandalised it is just too much. Feels like a real slap in the face from Persimmon to put it lightly.

agrinnall

If the problem has been going on for so long I don't understand why you haven't simply fenced off the garden yourself and sent Persimmon the bill.

comeandgo

OP mentions that neighbour is a contractor of Persimmons, not a direct employee. Anyway what happens on a drunken Saturday night has nothing to do with Persimmons though I would imagine once the contract is finished said contractor would not be asked to price anything else.

DRP

the vandalism and the fencing off issue seem entirely separate to me.

By sorting out the fence, you will automatically solve the other probelm, so i would concentrate my efforts on forcing Persimmons to sort that out. The vandalism is largely out of their control.

zzzLazyDaisy

comeandgo wrote: »

OP mentions that neighbour is a contractor of Persimmons, not a direct employee.

This ^^^^

Although if Persimmons knows the name and/or address of the person concerned they can certainly instruct their contractor that this individual must not represent Persimmons in any further work on this site, it is then up to the contractor to deal with this individual. I agree with the poster who pointed out that 'bringing the company into disrepute' would be relevant here, but what the contractor chooses to do about this employee would not be Persimmons business (or OP's).

housestar

DRP wrote: »

the vandalism and the fencing off issue seem entirely separate to me.

By sorting out the fence, you will automatically solve the other probelm, so i would concentrate my efforts on forcing Persimmons to sort that out. The vandalism is largely out of their control.

Yes, I agree – two separate issues. But if Persimmon had dealt with this fencing / boundary issue from the outset then we wouldn't be at a point where we are now experiencing vandalism and theft (sorry, as you said in fact).

The fact that it is one of Persimmon's own contractors just makes it sting.

We have spoken with Persimmon now and are awaiting an update for a final resolution to the matter.

housestar

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

This ^^^^

Although if Persimmons knows the name and/or address of the person concerned they can certainly instruct their contractor that this individual must not represent Persimmons in any further work on this site.

We have requested that they specifically do not do any remedial work on our property.

moneyistooshorttomention

A subcontractor then and not a direct employee. I missed that bit.

One time when I had a job done on my house by what turned out to be a subcontractor of the guy I thought I was employing I caught him red-handed trying to steal from me (well he didn't look the brightest button:rotfl:).

I reported this to the owner of the firm and I gather this sub-contractor didn't get employed by them again, even though I had just told them and not made a specific request for him to be "sacked".

hazyjo

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

A subcontractor then and not a direct employee. I missed that bit.

One time when I had a job done on my house by what turned out to be a subcontractor of the guy I thought I was employing I caught him red-handed trying to steal from me (well he didn't look the brightest button:rotfl:).

I reported this to the owner of the firm and I gather this sub-contractor didn't get employed by them again, even though I had just told them and not made a specific request for him to be "sacked".

But he was 'on the job' at the time so that's an understandable outcome. If you'd caught him nicking something from the local shop, or graffitiing a wall in your road, would you then inform the person who was employing him as a subcontractor?

Jx

moneyistooshorttomention

hazyjo wrote: »

But he was 'on the job' at the time so that's an understandable outcome. If you'd caught him nicking something from the local shop, or graffitiing a wall in your road, would you then inform the person who was employing him as a subcontractor?

Jx

If I was feeling in Altruistic Mode, then quite possibly.

In Altruistic Mode I would think "I wouldn't want someone like that as an employee of mine and would appreciate being told that's what they were like, so that I could get rid of them and give a decent person a chance instead".

But then I'm someone who has reported to a shopkeeper that I've realised one of their employees is probably a thief and they checked...and I was right...

Some might differ on that...but that's my take on it.