Overpaid by previous employer, should I have to pay it back ?

KiKi

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971, (as amended) it is an offence to demand payment for goods known to be unsolicited, in other words, they were sent to a person without any prior request made by them or on their behalf.

The employer isn't demanding payment for the fridge freezer.

They're asking for her to give the fridge freezer back because they made a mistake. However, because she's used the fridge freezers and they're not fit for re-sale right now, she will have to give them back in installments once they're de-iced.

hippyadam

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

The OP shouldn't have to. Their contract ended on the last paypacket, which should have reconciled their monies owing.

If the employer had continued to send them an unsolicited fridge freezer once a month, then they could not ask for it back! What's the difference?

Under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971, (as amended) it is an offence to demand payment for goods known to be unsolicited, in other words, they were sent to a person without any prior request made by them or on their behalf.

It's a massive difference... If the OP says swivel they'll simply issue in court and win. Irrespective of the now defunct contract.

As has been stated already OP contact the employer in writing and offer a suitable repayment figure.

Googlewhacker

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

The OP shouldn't have to. Their contract ended on the last paypacket, which should have reconciled their monies owing.

If the employer had continued to send them an unsolicited fridge freezer once a month, then they could not ask for it back! What's the difference?

Under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971, (as amended) it is an offence to demand payment for goods known to be unsolicited, in other words, they were sent to a person without any prior request made by them or on their behalf.

Straws, clutching, at!

lucylucky

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Straws, clutching, at!

How very true.:D

Sambucus_Nigra

hippyadam wrote: »

It's a massive difference... If the OP says swivel they'll simply issue in court and win. Irrespective of the now defunct contract.

As has been stated already OP contact the employer in writing and offer a suitable repayment figure.

Yeah, give up without even making a stand...all very easy to do when it's not you in the situation!

lucylucky

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Yeah, give up without even making a stand...all very easy to do when it's not you in the situation!

Not give up - contact the employer as has been stated but the OP has been too busy with their head [STRIKE]up their ar[/STRIKE] in the sand

dseventy

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

This scenario does make me mad.

In other businesses - when people lose money the company have taken the losses from the employee's pay. But you get a manager who doesn't complete the paperwork, or payroll/HR that doesn't do their job; and loses money and the person who has now left has to pay it back. If it had been a customer, it would be written off or the person who actually forked up would have to pay.

As mentioned - the employee had a contract to over pay any monies - however that contract ended 4/5 months ago. It is no longer valid! It's not her fault that the dumba$$ manager is incompetent.

I'd personally, if I was THAT brassic - tell them to swivel. i.e....

A - I may have had a contract to
pay back monies owing, however this ended on XXX date and for 4 full months you [the company] continued paying money into my account and I [the OP] consider that to be no different to unsolicited goods.

B - I [The OP] cannot pay it back now, due to hardship - so would happily attend any court hearing to express this hardship and make my case. I believe that my income and expenditure would support this and I [the OP] have been advised to collect detailed records of such for the court's perusal.

I know I'll get flamed but; one month - yes pay it back. 2 - now that's annoying. 3 - !!!!!! this is stupid but 4 - take me to court you ignorant b'stards,

Only on this forum would and employer get the finger pointed and get blasted for an overpayment.

If the employee was underpaid for 4 months one suspects the same amount of hostility would still be thrown at the employer.

D70

Sambucus_Nigra

dseventy wrote: »

Only on this forum would and employer get the finger pointed and get blasted for an overpayment.

If the employee was underpaid for 4 months one suspects the same amount of hostility would still be thrown at the employer.

D70

Not one overpayment - 4

It's not hard though is it? Work out what people should be paid, and then pay it. Simples.

And I'd still say the same on any forum.

As I said - I knew I'd be flamed; but come on - how incompetent are they to pay 4 extra months' wages?

Uncertain

dseventy wrote: »

Only on this forum would and employer get the finger pointed and get blasted for an overpayment.

And rightly so!

After all, they DID make the mistake then repeat it four times! Regardless of any opinions about the OP's actions, or lack of them, had the employer got it right we wouldn't be having this debate!

GavB79

We're not talking about being given too much change at the corner shop - this is four months pay! Yes the employer was incompetent but any reasonable person would have notified them of the situation much earlier. These sort of posts make me weep for the future of society, they really do. Be guided by your morals, not what you may get away with on a technicality.
You know you didn't earn that money. And another point, it is the school that bears that loss, not the Local Authority. By not paying that money back you are genuinely depriving children of resources for their education.