Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Kelaroost
    • By Kelaroost 11th Sep 17, 6:53 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Kelaroost
    Employer deductions
    • #1
    • 11th Sep 17, 6:53 PM
    Employer deductions 11th Sep 17 at 6:53 PM
    Hi all

    Just left a job to start a new one, from the moment I handed my notice in my manager got really funny with me and was looking for excuses to discipline me although I've worked here for 12 months with a clean slate. He put me in a position where he made it difficult to work there and I ended up serving my notice off work with a fit note for work related stress.
    Anyway whilst I was there I was given a van which was previously involved in a shunt and required a new bonnet lights grill bumper and radiator. The guy just fitted a new bumper and bodged everything else which only came apparent 2 months before I left.
    6 months into me driving the van the radiator started leaking heavily and the company tried to blame me for damaging the radiator (bear in mind it's a good 10 inches behind the bumper and the bumper is still in brand new condition) I argued this stating the damage was done by previous driver and it was clearly visible that the bumper was in New condition and for me to damage the radiator I would have had to damage the new bumper.
    I also was supplied a work pda (galaxy note 3) which I did drop at work from a ladder and cracked the screen.

    Today I receive my final wage slip and they've taken 410 for the radiator and 204 for the phone.
    I emailed the manager asking what was going on, I can understand a replacement screen on the phone but 204!! I did say I'd get the phone repaired before I leave but because I had the last few weeks off with work related stress they sent an employee around unannounced on the day I sent them the sick note to pick up everything company related so didn't get chance to do that.
    The van was supposed to be going through an inspection to see if I had damaged it or previois driver but another employee I still speak to told me they didn't do it and the supervisor changed the radiator himself.
    I've asked the manager for invoices for the pda and fornthe repair done on the radiator. He has refused to give me those, surely if I've paid for something I should be allowed to see what I've paid for? I'm assuming it's because he can't tie the radiator to the van because it's will be just a receipt as he done the repair himself and won't have any info about the vehicle it's fitted too (which also may help if I go to small claims/tribunal).
    Now I'm not very good at this kind of stuff so I just wanted to know what you guys would do in this situation?
    Also in regards to the pda if they've replaced it with a new one which at that price seems likely does that mean the old one now belongs to me? It was only a chip on the screen so a massive overreaction.
    He's clearly being an !!!! because I've left and overcharging for everything expecting me to bow down.
    614 isn't something I'm going them keep without a fight.
    All my contact has been email so I have written proof.
    What route should I take now?
    Thanks all
Page 1
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 11th Sep 17, 7:20 PM
    • 3,721 Posts
    • 6,088 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #2
    • 11th Sep 17, 7:20 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Sep 17, 7:20 PM
    And what does your contact say about deductions?
    • Kelaroost
    • By Kelaroost 11th Sep 17, 9:02 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Kelaroost
    • #3
    • 11th Sep 17, 9:02 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Sep 17, 9:02 PM
    It's in my contract that they can make deductions but it's the fact I want to dispute the deduction because they've charged me for a radiator someone else damaged before I was given the van... without the independent inspection they said they would do to determine if I had actually done the damage. The pda I'm not disputing because I broke it, just the cost that seems far higher than the cost of replacing a screen they said they were changing.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 11th Sep 17, 9:16 PM
    • 3,721 Posts
    • 6,088 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #4
    • 11th Sep 17, 9:16 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Sep 17, 9:16 PM
    It's in my contract that they can make deductions but it's the fact I want to dispute the deduction because they've charged me for a radiator someone else damaged before I was given the van... without the independent inspection they said they would do to determine if I had actually done the damage. The pda I'm not disputing because I broke it, just the cost that seems far higher than the cost of replacing a screen they said they were changing.
    Originally posted by Kelaroost
    Well you can certainly ask them to evidence the costs. I doubt you are going to get very far on the PDA as there is no requirement for them to just repair it - if they replace it that is their decision. To be honest in terms of the radiator, I would guess that it depends what evidence there is that the damage existed before you got the van. Bumper or not, without a clear evidence trail showing that there was a fault before you got it, saying that the fault only appeared ten months into your having the van does leave it open to question. But you'll have to start with asking them to prove the costs that they have deducted.
    • Kelaroost
    • By Kelaroost 11th Sep 17, 9:38 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Kelaroost
    • #5
    • 11th Sep 17, 9:38 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Sep 17, 9:38 PM
    I have pictures of the van when I got it with all the damage and the van was claimed against when he rode into the back of someone. All the radiator support brackets are broken so it would only require a bumpy road as the rad isn't held in by anything. I understand it doesn't look good it took so long for it to happen but if the van was repaired to a good standard or even inspected after his bump then it would have been picked up before I was issued the van
    • Gavin83
    • By Gavin83 11th Sep 17, 10:51 PM
    • 4,534 Posts
    • 7,144 Thanks
    Gavin83
    • #6
    • 11th Sep 17, 10:51 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Sep 17, 10:51 PM
    I doubt you are going to get very far on the PDA as there is no requirement for them to just repair it - if they replace it that is their decision.
    Originally posted by sangie595
    But surely they have some responsibility to mitigate their costs and can't replace a used phone with a new phone and expect them to pay for the whole thing. If a phone can easily be repaired for £40 to the standard it was before and they decide to buy a new one then that'll be on them.

    Why draw the line there, why not charge him for a new van due to the damage?
    • Kelaroost
    • By Kelaroost 11th Sep 17, 11:26 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Kelaroost
    • #7
    • 11th Sep 17, 11:26 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Sep 17, 11:26 PM
    On the subject of the PDA... If I replace a broken item does the broken item then belong to me?
    The PDA had a small crack in the top corner which didn't effect the use of the phone, if so I'll request that back and change the screen myself to recover some of the cost.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 12th Sep 17, 7:37 AM
    • 3,721 Posts
    • 6,088 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #8
    • 12th Sep 17, 7:37 AM
    • #8
    • 12th Sep 17, 7:37 AM
    But surely they have some responsibility to mitigate their costs and can't replace a used phone with a new phone and expect them to pay for the whole thing. If a phone can easily be repaired for £40 to the standard it was before and they decide to buy a new one then that'll be on them.

    Why draw the line there, why not charge him for a new van due to the damage?
    Originally posted by Gavin83
    Because, and I emphasise that this is based on them having actually bought a new one, that is their decision. The screen may be the only visibly damaged component. That does not mean it is. They could decide that to simply repair it without any certainty that the item is now worth repairing, given that this is a low cost item, is not worth that risk. And if that is the decision they make, then it is within their purview. A van is not a low cost item and there is no reason to assume that a repair needed on one part means that the entire of the rest is at any degree of risk. However, in some circumstances vehicles are certainly able to fall into this situation - that is exactly what a write off is.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 12th Sep 17, 7:38 AM
    • 3,721 Posts
    • 6,088 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #9
    • 12th Sep 17, 7:38 AM
    • #9
    • 12th Sep 17, 7:38 AM
    On the subject of the PDA... If I replace a broken item does the broken item then belong to me?
    The PDA had a small crack in the top corner which didn't effect the use of the phone, if so I'll request that back and change the screen myself to recover some of the cost.
    Originally posted by Kelaroost
    No. You are not buying a broken item. You are being charged the price of replacing it (assuming it is replaced) because you broke it. The money you are paying is not part of a transaction to purchase the old damaged PDA
    • jobbingmusician
    • By jobbingmusician 12th Sep 17, 6:57 PM
    • 18,689 Posts
    • 18,970 Thanks
    jobbingmusician
    No. You are not buying a broken item. You are being charged the price of replacing it (assuming it is replaced) because you broke it. The money you are paying is not part of a transaction to purchase the old damaged PDA
    Originally posted by sangie595
    Sangie, I don't understand your response. (I am not saying I disagree, I'm saying that I don't understand what you mean by it.) It seems to me to be natural justice that if the OP is paying to have the item replaced, s/he should be entitled to possession of the old one. In any case, what is to be lost by putting this case to the employer?
    I'm the Board Guide on the Matched Betting; Referrers and Jobseeking & Training boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge posts there. Board guides are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.

    The good folk of the matched betting board are now (I hope!) supporting Macmillan, in memory of Fifigrace. Visit
    https://www.gofundme.com/running-the-leeds-10k-for-macmillan
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 12th Sep 17, 8:16 PM
    • 3,721 Posts
    • 6,088 Thanks
    sangie595
    Sangie, I don't understand your response. (I am not saying I disagree, I'm saying that I don't understand what you mean by it.) It seems to me to be natural justice that if the OP is paying to have the item replaced, s/he should be entitled to possession of the old one. In any case, what is to be lost by putting this case to the employer?
    Originally posted by jobbingmusician
    Natural justice doesn't exist. They can put the case. They have no right to be agreed with. That is the point. The employer can be required to prove they bought the item to replace a broken one. They cannot be required to give the broken one. This is not a transaction. They are not buying a broken item. They are compensating for something they broke.
    • Gavin83
    • By Gavin83 12th Sep 17, 9:08 PM
    • 4,534 Posts
    • 7,144 Thanks
    Gavin83
    However I very much doubt the company is allowed to profit from the situation which is exactly what is happening. They're replacing a used phone for a new one. This puts them in a better position than they were before. I'd also expect them to receive the old one in this situation. It must also be the only situation in existence where a new purchase is allowed when a repair is possible.

    Your car comment isn't really applicable either. A write off is when a vehicle cannot be repaired, at least economically. There is no indication that the phone couldn't be economically repaired.

    OP, as for the car you'll need some level of proof. Do you have any?
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 12th Sep 17, 9:31 PM
    • 3,721 Posts
    • 6,088 Thanks
    sangie595
    However I very much doubt the company is allowed to profit from the situation which is exactly what is happening. They're replacing a used phone for a new one. This puts them in a better position than they were before. I'd also expect them to receive the old one in this situation. It must also be the only situation in existence where a new purchase is allowed when a repair is possible.

    Your car comment isn't really applicable either. A write off is when a vehicle cannot be repaired, at least economically. There is no indication that the phone couldn't be economically repaired.

    OP, as for the car you'll need some level of proof. Do you have any?
    Originally posted by Gavin83
    Think what you like. It isn't the only situation. What you expect isn't relevant.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,237Posts Today

8,192Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin