Question for a mate.. Employer asking for money back...
Discussion
Was chatting to a mate of mine last night, he got 'laid off' from Argos last year (His contract wasn't renewed after Christmas), and apparently he recieved a letter from them recently saying that they overpaid him by about £70~ and they're looking him to pay it back.
Can they do this? Surely it's a mistake on they're end, and he didn't actually do anything wrong..
Can they do this? Surely it's a mistake on they're end, and he didn't actually do anything wrong..
I started working for a company, but after a couple of weeks decided it wasn't for me(a
hole of a boss and lied to in the interview). Found a new job and resigned (with no notice as per contract) at the end of the month.
I didn't do it deliberately, but I left 2 days shy of the month end, so I had been overpaid by 2 days.
The HR people rang me and asked for money back. I immediately agreed and told them I'd write cheque as soon as they issued me with a new payslip and P45. They said they would issue documents after they got the money back, I declined to pay back until I got the documents. This went back and forth until they just went away.
If your mate just makes life as difficult as possible, and as expensive as possible to recover the money, while at all times agreeing that he should, and will pay it back, it may just go away. Never underestimate peoples abailty to take the easy path.
hole of a boss and lied to in the interview). Found a new job and resigned (with no notice as per contract) at the end of the month.I didn't do it deliberately, but I left 2 days shy of the month end, so I had been overpaid by 2 days.
The HR people rang me and asked for money back. I immediately agreed and told them I'd write cheque as soon as they issued me with a new payslip and P45. They said they would issue documents after they got the money back, I declined to pay back until I got the documents. This went back and forth until they just went away.
If your mate just makes life as difficult as possible, and as expensive as possible to recover the money, while at all times agreeing that he should, and will pay it back, it may just go away. Never underestimate peoples abailty to take the easy path.
10 months ago?
Ignore them. He must have had his P45 months ago. Unless a reference from them is crucial just ignore them. Don't even engage. If they telephone him, he should tell them that he doesn't take kindly to harassment and will speak to the Police if they call again.
They'll not take any further action for the sake of £70.
Ignore them. He must have had his P45 months ago. Unless a reference from them is crucial just ignore them. Don't even engage. If they telephone him, he should tell them that he doesn't take kindly to harassment and will speak to the Police if they call again.
They'll not take any further action for the sake of £70.
It looks to me as though someone at the company has done an audit and realised there was an overpayment. They have sent out a standard letter looking to reclaim it. Some people will just pay up so the company has nothing to lose by asking. I would simply ignore the letter. They may send a follow up letter but won't take it any further.
Jimmyarm said:
I was under the impression that if you had spent it on everyday items e.g. food/clothes etc then you were not entitled to give it back..
Sure I found something on one of the government websites a while back...*scurries off to find linky
You'll be scurrying for a long time! If you find it, it will be out of date...Sure I found something on one of the government websites a while back...*scurries off to find linky
The employers are entitled to it, as has been said, it's a trivial amount but they will just be going through a reconciliation process and couldn't care if it was £70 or £7,000.
Just make it a painless for yourself as possible, agree to pay it back over a year so you don't notice it. The last thing you want is a collector banging on your door or a lawyers letter with the extra administration charges lumped on top.
Just make it a painless for yourself as possible, agree to pay it back over a year so you don't notice it. The last thing you want is a collector banging on your door or a lawyers letter with the extra administration charges lumped on top.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 27th October 15:33
Berw said:
Yes he has to pay it back, but assuming no fraud on his part, and an error by his employer, make them suffer, he was laid off, offer them 50p a week, it will cost more in admin and they will never bother him again.
+1 to this, good advice again! seems there are some sensible people on this forum!Berw said:
Yes he has to pay it back, but assuming no fraud on his part, and an error by his employer, make them suffer, he was laid off, offer them 50p a week, it will cost more in admin and they will never bother him again.
Yeah make them suffer, after all he was on a temporary contract and he never knew that there is the possiblity that it will not be renewed!V8mate said:
10 months ago?
Ignore them. He must have had his P45 months ago. Unless a reference from them is crucial just ignore them. Don't even engage. If they telephone him, he should tell them that he doesn't take kindly to harassment and will speak to the Police if they call again.
They'll not take any further action for the sake of £70.
They may, they may not - a Debt Collection Agency will generally take anything on over £50, in my experience.Ignore them. He must have had his P45 months ago. Unless a reference from them is crucial just ignore them. Don't even engage. If they telephone him, he should tell them that he doesn't take kindly to harassment and will speak to the Police if they call again.
They'll not take any further action for the sake of £70.
Instances such as these are governed by the 1996 Theft Act (as amended) Section 2, pertaining to dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit. If you fail to pay the money back; your actions will be contravening this legislation. This is because you know that the credit is wrongful, have kept it despite the fact that you have no right or interest and have dishonestly failed to take such steps as are reasonable to secure that the credit is cancelled...
scirocco265 said:
Instances such as these are governed by the 1996 Theft Act (as amended) Section 2, pertaining to dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit. If you fail to pay the money back; your actions will be contravening this legislation. This is because you know that the credit is wrongful, have kept it despite the fact that you have no right or interest and have dishonestly failed to take such steps as are reasonable to secure that the credit is cancelled...
I don't think so.The Act states:
A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a) a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest;
(b) he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and
(c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled
I'd argue that a £70 discrepancy in a wage packet could be easily overlooked by the recipient, thereby removing the 'knows' element of (b), and that he could reasonably, and additionally, argue that he doesn't believe that he wrongfully received the payment.
V8mate said:
scirocco265 said:
Instances such as these are governed by the 1996 Theft Act (as amended) Section 2, pertaining to dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit. If you fail to pay the money back; your actions will be contravening this legislation. This is because you know that the credit is wrongful, have kept it despite the fact that you have no right or interest and have dishonestly failed to take such steps as are reasonable to secure that the credit is cancelled...
I don't think so.The Act states:
A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a) a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest;
(b) he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and
(c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled
I'd argue that a £70 discrepancy in a wage packet could be easily overlooked by the recipient, thereby removing the 'knows' element of (b), and that he could reasonably, and additionally, argue that he doesn't believe that he wrongfully received the payment.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff