Been Overpaid - Now they want it back

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Breadvan72 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Hasn't the "you have to pay it back" stance changed since Keenan V Barclays 2009 .

Not only did Keenan get to keep the overpayment, but Barclays were ordered to continue paying her the incorrect amount as she'd got used to it and now had ongoing commitments based on the incorrect salary!!!

No, nothing has changed.

That case -

(1) was decided by an employment tribunal, and so the decision does not bind any other tribunal or any court;

(2) turned on its own facts.

Ok, wasn't aware of that, thanks for the info.

But out of interest, this happened to a friend of mine, and in the absence of your expertise, I told her to write to her employer quoting the above case and saying if they waived the repayment of monies overpaid, she'd waive the right to fight for the overpayment to continue.

They agreed!!!

Might be worth the OP doing the same.

The parties did a deal to avoid the uncertainty of a dispute. That's commonplace. The OP should indeed haggle.

[MarshPhantom]

I was overpaid for a couple of years. The employer corrected this but didn't ask for any money back.

[MarshPhantom]

hashtag said:

It is their money not yours.

I suppose you could refuse and collect your P45 on your way home.

Wasn't it their money until they decided to give it to the OP?

[anonymous-user]

When money is paid by A to B by mistake, A has what is called a restitutionary claim for repayment of the money. B has been, in the language of the law of restitution, "unjustly enriched". The claim can be defeated if B changes his or her position on receipt of the money in such a way as to make an obligation to repay unfair.

Examples:

1. A pays B 20K by mistake. B uses the 20K to buy a car. No change of position. The car can be sold. B must repay 20K.

2. A pays B 20 K by mistake. B spends the money on school fees that would not otherwise have been incurred. Change of position. The money spent cannot be recovered or its value realised in cash. B need not repay 20K.

[hast2]

Breadvan72 said:

When money is paid by A to B by mistake, A has what is called a restitutionary claim for repayment of the money. B has been, in the language of the law of restitution, "unjustly enriched". The claim can be defeated if B changes his or her position on receipt of the money in such a way as to make an obligation to repay unfair.

Examples:

1. A pays B 20K by mistake. B uses the 20K to buy a car. No change of position. The car can be sold. B must repay 20K.

2. A pays B 20 K by mistake. B spends the money on school fees that would not otherwise have been incurred. Change of position. The money spent cannot be recovered or its value realised in cash. B need not repay 20K.

Thanks for that example, I hadn't appreciated that their would be a difference between spending the money on possessions and services.

I'll be sure to keep that in mind when phrasing things while I haggle my position.

[anonymous-user]

Hint: don't tell them you blew the lot on coke and hookers.

[anonymous-user]

Coke and hookers would involve a change of position(s). No, really. Unless you would have done all the coke and hookers anyway.

[anonymous-user]

Indeed, though it might not be prudent for your future job market prospects...

[MitchT]

Breadvan72 said:

When money is paid by A to B by mistake, A has what is called a restitutionary claim for repayment of the money. B has been, in the language of the law of restitution, "unjustly enriched".

Without wanting to hijack the thread ...

If I buy a new phone on a 24 month contract for £40/month and, after 24 months, forget to shop around for a sim only deal and then, after a further 24 months, realise I've been continuing to pay £40/month when an element of that was for the handset which I'd paid for after the first 24 months, what's to stop me claiming back the overpayment?

[DanL]

MitchT said:

Breadvan72 said:

When money is paid by A to B by mistake, A has what is called a restitutionary claim for repayment of the money. B has been, in the language of the law of restitution, "unjustly enriched".

Without wanting to hijack the thread ...

If I buy a new phone on a 24 month contract for £40/month and, after 24 months, forget to shop around for a sim only deal and then, after a further 24 months, realise I've been continuing to pay £40/month when an element of that was for the handset which I'd paid for after the first 24 months, what's to stop me claiming back the overpayment?

Well, I'd guess that would be because you haven't made a mistake. If you'd been on a £40/month contract and paid them £50/month by mistake, I'd think you'd be claiming that back. More accurately, I'd think they'd have your account balance in credit, but still - same difference.

Mistakenly not shopping around for a better deal isn't the equivalent thing, is it?

[MitchT]

DanL said:

Well, I'd guess that would be because you haven't made a mistake.

The mistake was not changing service as soon as the contract expired. Also, what's the difference between this and a scenario I experienced previously when I'd paid off a personal loan but didn't cancel the direct debit because I thought the loan company would stop requesting the payments, with the result that I made two more payments before noticing? In that case I got the money back.

[Countdown]

MitchT said:

The mistake was not changing service as soon as the contract expired. Also, what's the difference between this and a scenario I experienced previously when I'd paid off a personal loan but didn't cancel the direct debit because I thought the loan company would stop requesting the payments, with the result that I made two more payments before noticing? In that case I got the money back.

I always assumed that it's because, technically, your monthly payment is for line rental rather than "line rental plus cost of handset"

[ashleyman]

MitchT said:

Breadvan72 said:

When money is paid by A to B by mistake, A has what is called a restitutionary claim for repayment of the money. B has been, in the language of the law of restitution, "unjustly enriched".

Without wanting to hijack the thread ...

If I buy a new phone on a 24 month contract for £40/month and, after 24 months, forget to shop around for a sim only deal and then, after a further 24 months, realise I've been continuing to pay £40/month when an element of that was for the handset which I'd paid for after the first 24 months, what's to stop me claiming back the overpayment?

Some of that monthly payment is repayment towards the loan you'll have on the phone. The provider should automatically reduce your monthly payment when the phone is paid off.

[MarshPhantom]

janesmith1950 said:

Hint: don't tell them you blew the lot on coke and hookers.

No, say you spent it on flowers like Elton John did.

[DanL]

MitchT said:

DanL said:

Well, I'd guess that would be because you haven't made a mistake.

The mistake was not changing service as soon as the contract expired. Also, what's the difference between this and a scenario I experienced previously when I'd paid off a personal loan but didn't cancel the direct debit because I thought the loan company would stop requesting the payments, with the result that I made two more payments before noticing? In that case I got the money back.

Because in one instance you're expecting to pay £40/month, but could pay less if you shopped around. In the other instance you're not expecting to pay, but had money taken anyway.

I seem to recall O2 changed the way their contracts worked to automatically drop the monthly payments after the phone is paid for - if they didn't, the situation would be one where you'd expect to get the money back after pointing out their mistake. If you're on one of the "old style" contracts that just retain the same payment regardless, you wouldn't expect to get money back because you should expect to keep paying the same amount unless you do something about it...

[HIS LM]

Good luck to the OP and apologies for the thread drift but my other half has just discovered she has been underpaid for almost 9 years

I know I know, but her employer despite admitting the error only wants to make good on the last 2 years is there a statute of limitations ?

[anonymous-user]

Two years under statute for a deduction from wages claim, but six years for a common law claim for breach of contract or debt.

[HIS LM]

There is a big difference in the value between 2 and 6 years is there a link to any legislation that might assist in strengthening her case
She is still employed and has 25 years continuous service - so feeling more than a little aggrieved with the offer

[anonymous-user]

The Limitation Act 1980 sets the six year limit for claims in debt and contract. A Court of Appeal case called Rickard v PB Glass establishes that an employee has a choice whether to make a statutory claim for deduction from wages or whether to make a common law claim in debt or contract. That was the first case that I ever argued in the Court of Appeal. Late 80s, I think. Edit: 1990.

[hast2]

Well I finally got an official response from the company on my overpayments.

It's a 5 page letter that pretty much goes into great detail on who said what at the meeting and how that comments have influenced the decision.

The edited version of the letter is that I've either lied and knew about it and it's therefore my problem, or I should have checked my payslips and therefore still my fault.

(going on some of the comments on this thread plenty will agree with their decision)