Overpayment conundrum

[sploosh]

Back story.

My post was deleted in a restructure, I took on a new post effective 1st August 2010 with protected salary for 6 months (to Feb 2011).

New post has now also been deleted so I will be redundant in a couple of weeks time.

I'm still being paid at my original salary.

Had I been staying I would have mentioned this to finance, but I'm not and why should I do their job for them?

I'm anticipating a compromise agreement so my thoughts are to make sure that this works two ways and protects me from further action by them in the same way they want to make sure they are protected from further action I may take.

In the back of my mind I'm thinking not admitting the overpayment is technically theft and therefore criminal law wheras a compromise agreement is civil / common law so may not make any difference anyway.

Probably a grand or so.

Any views on the legal position?

[GarryA]

Put the money to one side and see if they ask for it back?

[sploosh]

GarryA said:

Put the money to one side and see if they ask for it back?

Sort of doing that anyway as our aim is to reduce outgoings as much as possible.

.... but if I can get the compromise agreement worded to protect me then that makes sense (I will be taking legal advice via the union).

[don4l]

It depends.

Do you have a strong sense of personal integrity?

Don
--

[Deva Link]

sploosh said:

In the back of my mind I'm thinking not admitting the overpayment is technically theft and therefore criminal law wheras a compromise agreement is civil / common law so may not make any difference anyway.

They forgot and you forgot too. No big deal.

However when the calculations for your redundancy are being done, they'll probably realise then.

[sploosh]

don4l said:

It depends.

Do you have a strong sense of personal integrity?

Don
--

Yes (very), but not in this case.

[rog007]

Always do the right thing; then you can sleep well at night, have more spare time by not having to ask questions like this on forums like these and be on the moral high ground during any subsequent discussions. Good luck!

[Eric Mc]

If you keep any money KNOWING that you shouldn't have it, in law, that constututes theft and you could be prosecuted. It's up to you decide if you are comfortable in the knowledge that you have stolen £1,000 and run the risk of facing a crminal conviction.

[PaulHogan]

Of course you can go with the 'I never knew. I assumed they work my money out right' defence. All this does is make you a liar AND a thief.

Your choice. But honesty is always the better option.

[Deva Link]

Many people don't pay close attention to how much they're being paid - my future son-in-law paid tax using a basic rate tax code (so zero allowances) for the first 4 years after leaving uni and he had no idea until my wife was helping them with their mortgage application.

[Eric Mc]

Isn't that a bit of an indictment of peoples' awareness of their tax situation. Everybody should have at least one afternoon's session in school or college just briefing them on the basics of how tax and NI works.

[johnfm]

Careful chaps. You can do yourself an injury falling off a high horse.

I'm sure his employer has acted with the utmost integrity while determining what roles are redundant or not during the re-structure.


Comedy gold here from the PH righteous massive.....

[Countdown]

sploosh said:

don4l said:

It depends.

Do you have a strong sense of personal integrity?

Don
--

Yes (very), but not in this case.

Sploosh - surely you either HAVE integrity or you don't ? Isn't it a bit like saying " I have very high moral values, apart from occasional case of robbery, murder, rape and pillage" ?


Are you entitled/able to keep the money ? Only if you could reasonably believe that you were rightly entitled to it. For example, a person does a lot of overtime/variable shifts with a complex bonus or awards system and whose pay fluctuates constantly can argue that they could not be expected to realise an overpayment had been made.

What might happen

- Employer doesn't identify overpayment, you don't tell him. End of story
- Employer identifies overpayment and decides to write it off. End of story
- Employer identifies overpayment and decides to institure recover proceedings. He is entitled to deduct it straight from any remaining pay (unless Estoppel applies). Alterntiavely he might decide to take you to court (if you don't agree a repayment plan).

There are lots of factors that influence the employers actions. I have taken employees to court twice (once for overpaid salary, once for a car loan). In both cases the employee was taken the right royal mickey and I had no qualms about getting CCJs and would have gone to the bailiffs had it been required.

[Countdown]

johnfm said:

Careful chaps. You can do yourself an injury falling off a high horse.

I'm sure his employer has acted with the utmost integrity while determining what roles are redundant or not during the re-structure.

If the employer has behaved unlawfully then an ET claim would be the right way to proceed. Trying to justify holding on to an overpayment because you feel upset at the way you've been treated by your employer is a bit pathetic IMO.

[Engineer1]

Eric Mc said:

Isn't that a bit of an indictment of peoples' awareness of their tax situation. Everybody should have at least one afternoon's session in school or college just briefing them on the basics of how tax and NI works.

Um never going to happen, they want to make it a little confusing, overpaid tax comes back when they choose to pay it back, NI is a pyramid scheme and also a stealth tax that is less obviosu than a penny on income tax.

[fergywales]

Countdown said:

If the employer has behaved unlawfully then an ET claim would be the right way to proceed. Trying to justify holding on to an overpayment because you feel upset at the way you've been treated by your employer is a bit pathetic IMO.

Absolutely agree with this. Two wrongs and all that.

[fergywales]

Engineer1 said:

Um never going to happen, they want to make it a little confusing, overpaid tax comes back when they choose to pay it back, NI is a pyramid scheme and also a stealth tax that is less obviosu than a penny on income tax.

Taxation is able to be understood if someone bothers to look into it, or, as Eric MC is suggesting, should be taught about so that when the st hits the fan, PH doesn't get filled with "F U HMRC" style topics.

[Eric Mc]

The basic principles of taxation and NI are not that difficult - especially for people who will be under the PAYE system on basic rate tax when they enter tyhe workplace - which is most school/college leavers.

So, not on any high horse at all. I really do think that all school leavers should have at least one half day seminar going through the basics. If people understood how the PAYE Coding system works, most of their PAYE elated problems would be nipped in the bud.