Is my contract unfair?

SandC

carlw wrote: »

that’s great thank you for clarifying the legal position.

It is a generous benefit for an employer to offer to pay for your studies, it just seems like a way for an employer to trap its staff through fear of a large bill if they leave. Especially if they dont just offer to pay but insist you study.

If thats the law though then so be it.

Thanks again.

It feels like some kind of trap but it's only the employer trying to protect some of their expenditure. Many employers put clauses just like this into contracts - it's so that staff don't join them to get funded training then immediately leave for a position elsewhere. Think of it like an enhanced package.

smartpicture

Does it say in your contract that the costs may be deducted from your final salary, or have you previously agreed to this? The law only allows deductions from salary in very limited circumstances, and this isn't once of them unless it is part of your contract. Otherwise, you do still have to pay them back, but they can't deduct it from salary.

carlw

smartpicture wrote: »

Does it say in your contract that the costs may be deducted from your final salary, or have you previously agreed to this? The law only allows deductions from salary in very limited circumstances, and this isn't once of them unless it is part of your contract. Otherwise, you do still have to pay them back, but they can't deduct it from salary.

The contract actually says
"the employer retains the right to reclaim all of your study costs should you resign within one year of receiving or decide not to continue with your studys"

blue_monkey_2

My friend has the same on her contract, it is what people do if they want to better themselves through their career. You chose not to but why should your emplyer be left to pick up the bill because 'changed your mind'? She knows she has to stay a certain amount of time after getting her degree before she can even consider leaving.

Would you have taken the job if you had to qualify within 10 years and had to pay for that yourself, or would you have not bothered?

Why would you take a job as an accountant but not learn all aspects of the job and become qualified to do the job?

Yes, it is fair. You took the job knowing that clause was in your contract, if you do not want to repay it, stay and carry on studying instead.

donquine

OP, it is standard for accountancy training contracts to have a 'fee repay' clause written into them for if you leave before your training period is up. Being asked to repay training costs is not unusual.

The fact that your costs are being capped at the last 12 months of expenditure is pretty decent - not always the case. Being allowed 10 years to study - again, pretty decent. Most accountants are expected to qualify within 3 years, with 4 being the norm.

With regard to a tax rebate, I don't think you can claim for initial training, only professional subscriptions and CPD. Not 100% sure though, hopefully someone else will pick up on this thread, or failing that, a call to your local tax office ought to clear it up.

It's not what you want to hear, but I'm afraid you have nothing to complain about.

What job are you doing next? Is it accountancy related or not?

If it is accountancy related, you could try negotiating for your new employer to pay the costs. If it's completely unrelated, e.g. hairdressing, so that you will not be in competition with the company you're leaving, you could try arguing it is not in their interests to reclaim the costs.

The point of the clause is generally to stop staff switching jobs mid contract and/or being poached - if this doesn't apply to you, you could try appealing to your employer's better nature. I have seen it happen before, but where the employee has left on good terms with the door wide open.

carlw

thanks blue_monkey, my question has already been answered, i just wanted to know legally if the contract term was deemed fair or not. Not get into a discussion about why i chose not to study, or why i took the job.

hcb42

should be paid back, it is a waste of an opportunity too, such jobs are hard to find

donquine

carlw wrote: »

thanks blue_monkey, my question has already been answered, i just wanted to know legally if the contract term was deemed fair or not. Not get into a discussion about why i chose not to study, or why i took the job.

I can't give you a specific legal reference, but I can confirm that a similar clause is standard in all Big 4 contracts - and the Big 4 have some very expensive lawyers so I can't imagine them getting it wrong.

carlw

donquine wrote: »

OP, it is standard for accountancy training contracts to have a 'fee repay' clause written into them for if you leave before your training period is up. Being asked to repay training costs is not unusual.

The fact that your costs are being capped at the last 12 months of expenditure is pretty decent - not always the case. Being allowed 10 years to study - again, pretty decent. Most accountants are expected to qualify within 3 years, with 4 being the norm.

With regard to a tax rebate, I don't think you can claim for initial training, only professional subscriptions and CPD. Not 100% sure though, hopefully someone else will pick up on this thread, or failing that, a call to your local tax office ought to clear it up.

It's not what you want to hear, but I'm afraid you have nothing to complain about.

What job are you doing next? Is it accountancy related or not?

If it is accountancy related, you could try negotiating for your new employer to pay the costs. If it's completely unrelated, e.g. hairdressing, so that you will not be in competition with the company you're leaving, you could try arguing it is not in their interests to reclaim the costs.

The point of the clause is generally to stop staff switching jobs mid contract and/or being poached - if this doesn't apply to you, you could try appealing to your employer's better nature. I have seen it happen before, but where the employee has left on good terms with the door wide open.

Thanks very much for this, no the job is in financial services but not accountancy based at all, my qualifications will be of no benefit, but my experience will. I had had enough and wanted a career change. To be fair the reason i chose not to study here was because my job over the years had moved into an area away from accounts, although i still did a small amount of accounting the training was not relevant for what i did.

I will get onto HMRC, and ill try and negotiate with my employer but i just really wanted to know where i stood and that seems clear now.

Thanks

Uncertain

hcb42 wrote: »

should be paid back, it is a waste of an opportunity too, such jobs are hard to find

These sort of posts really annoy me!

It MAY be a "waste of an opportunity" or there may be all kinds of good reasons for the OP's change of direction. There is nothing in the OP's posts to tell us.

Why can't people refrain from making sweeping moral judgements based on little information and even less knowledge?