Proof of Prohibited or Unauthorised Secondary Employment by Detectives

Case Study: New Driving School Using a Competitor’s Training Vehicles?

Time and again, the detectives of Kurtz Detective Agency Kiel and Schleswig-Holstein have witnessed fierce rivalry between competitors; even within the detective industry itself, unfair methods against disliked competitors are commonplace. The driving school sector is no exception. For months, the problems between our client Mr Reinbek and one of his employees, the driving instructor Mr Heide, had been increasing and escalating further. Sporadic and mostly very short-notice absences, a brusque manner and an openly displayed lack of motivation had characterised Mr Heide’s work performance since the beginning of the disputes between employer and employee. Ultimately, the differences culminated in a verbal resignation of the employment relationship by the employee.

At that point, the client of our corporate investigators in Kiel had long suspected that the numerous periods of free time Mr Heide had taken in recent months were being used to work for a competing driving school. As the instructor left the company around fourteen days before the official end of his employment, using up his accumulated overtime and remaining holiday entitlement, our client Mr Reinbek saw a good opportunity to have his suspicions reviewed by our private investigators from Schleswig-Holstein.

Irregularities in the Electronic Logbook

Mr Reinbek had a very specific “accomplice” in mind regarding his suspicions: another driving school company from the same town could be the secondary – and likely future primary – employer of the target individual. The company was run by a mutual acquaintance; naturally, people in the industry know one another. When our detectives from Kiel conducted a telephone briefing with Mr Reinbek on the morning of the first day of surveillance, the electronic logbook had already revealed that the target individual, Mr Heide, had undertaken an extended circular drive in the local area during the previous night using his employer’s training vehicle. It could not have involved one of our client’s learner drivers, and the vehicle was not authorised for private use.

Initially, the surveillance team checked the target individual’s residential address, a large farmhouse, and in parallel the two business premises of the suspected secondary employer. For cost reasons, only two of our private investigators from Kiel were authorised for this case – a challenge given the three relevant addresses. As no inconspicuous surveillance position could be found at the residential address that would have ensured visibility of the premises, discretion and rapid departure options at the same time, operational management decided to concentrate the surveillance on the two addresses of the alleged secondary employer. At the start of surveillance, our client’s training vehicle in question was parked at the target individual’s farmhouse. Although there was lively activity at both observed company addresses on the first day (learner drivers and instructors appeared regularly), the target individual Mr Heide did not make an appearance.

Luck Favours the Prepared: Target Individual Spotted in Competitor’s Vehicle

The following morning: when the investigators from our corporate detective agency in Kiel arrived at Mr Heide’s farmhouse, our client’s training vehicle was present, but his private car was nowhere to be seen. This initially indicated that the start of surveillance had been scheduled too late and that our client would have to accept budgeting additional hours for the following day to allow for an earlier start. Over the course of the day, the corporate investigators repeatedly alternated between checking the three relevant addresses, but without sighting the target individual. Surveillance operations in which the target cannot be located are generally frustrating for both client and detective – as an observer, one does not feel able to act in a truly targeted manner. To counteract this, the investigators questioned Mr Reinbek in the hope of identifying alternative leads. This revealed an address where, according to the logbook, the target individual had spent extended periods on several occasions with the training vehicle. Mr Reinbek suspected that Mr Heide and his presumed secondary employer were planning to establish a new joint driving school there – sufficient reason for our corporate investigators from Kiel to verify the address.

Although the on-site check of the address revealed no irregularities (neither target individuals nor vehicles were present), sometimes fortune favours the diligent: on the return journey from the address check to the known company premises, one of the two detectives noticed three training vehicles belonging to the suspected new employer of the target individual. One of them matched, by registration number, a vehicle that Mr Reinbek had previously identified as a possible training vehicle used by the target at the new driving school (Mr Heide had been recognised in it weeks earlier by a colleague). Two persons were in the vehicle – apparently a learner driver and an instructor. Unfortunately, the passenger, the presumed instructor, was sitting low in his seat and wearing a face covering, making identification difficult. After prolonged following, our private investigator from Kiel managed to position himself alongside the vehicle at traffic lights – and indeed: the passenger was the target individual Mr Heide, who was evidently conducting a driving lesson for a direct competitor of his employer, as suspected.

Court-Admissible Documentation of Presence at Competitor’s Premises

Conducting discreet surveillance of a learner driver sounds easier than it is. Anyone consistently driving well below the permitted speed limit stands out in German traffic. And anyone who refrains from overtaking such a “slow mover” stands out even more. In addition to the low speed, there were driving exercises, circular routing and the fact that the second observer was too far away to provide immediate support. Fortunately, the pursuing investigator did not have to maintain the delicate balance between proximity to the target vehicle and discretion for long before the learner driver was dropped off in a residential area and Mr Heide continued alone. Upon returning from the residential area, he was no longer wearing a mask, enabling our Kiel detective to capture a snapshot of the target individual at the wheel of the competitor’s vehicle. Shortly afterwards, Mr Heide drove into a small side road surrounded by fields; in the interest of discretion, the observer had to let the vehicle go. The subsequent search by both deployed investigators was unsuccessful, but the documentation of the driving lesson for the competitor already represented significant progress.

To avoid again arriving at the residential address only after the target had departed, surveillance on the following day was brought forward by two and a half hours – a wise decision, as Mr Heide indeed left his residence early in the morning in the known training vehicle of the competitor, which had been parked overnight at his farmhouse. Due to the unfavourable traffic situation mentioned above and the limited personnel assigned to this case, direct pursuit was unsuccessful. However, the second observer from Kurtz Detective Agency Schleswig-Holstein had positioned himself at one of the competitor’s company addresses and was able to resume surveillance upon the target’s arrival. He documented another driving lesson conducted by Mr Heide with a learner before again having to let the vehicle go in order to preserve discretion. Subsequent operations followed a similar pattern: alternating between the relevant addresses and the TÜV testing centre, where learner drivers repeatedly appeared with instructors from the relevant driving school to take their examinations, and between documenting driving lessons and losing visual contact in the interest of discretion. In the meantime, the target individual was also documented spending time inside one of the two business premises of the new employer.

Summary of Documented Activities Leaves No Questions Unanswered

In total, our detective agency from Kiel was ultimately able to prove driving lessons conducted by the target individual for the client’s competitor on five separate days. Only proof of misuse of Mr Reinbek’s driving school vehicle could not be established. On the basis of this evidence, our client was able to assert substantial claims against his contract-breaching employee, foremost a considerable contractual penalty for the explicitly prohibited activity for a competitor. Such cases are by no means limited to the driving school sector; however, for the team at Kurtz Detective Agency Kiel and Schleswig-Holstein, this assignment represented a welcome change and a nostalgic reminder of their own driving school days.

Note

To preserve discretion and the personal rights of clients and target individuals, all names and locations in this case report have been altered beyond recognition.