unpaid salary

DVardysShadow

keatsy21 wrote: »

Lillythe Pink - I work for the same bank that I owe the money to but my current account is with another bank. I would have thought though that if they were to decide to not pay my salary then they would need to either inform me or have a court order which i have not been informed of.

Defaulting should not affect my employment, knowhere in my contract does it mention my own financial affairs but I am pretty sure it would be frowned upon if my management were to know!

One thing people don't like is being taken for mugs. So you incur debt with a bank and default. Then you start working for them and enrol in the sharesave scheme to make a profit of many times your investment.

Do you not see that the bank will not look kindly on you funding your huge gains of the back of defaults with them as a customer? They will think you are taking them for mugs. I don't often tell people what bad consequences the employer might bring down on them, because often it would not be justified. But for you, I am fairly certain that you will be barred all progression for many years. Or you may be subject to a disciplinary. Not knowing your salary and your debt, I can't be certain of this, but I would suspect that they will allow you to keep working for them for just as long as it takes to pay off the defaulted debt - they might leave you with NMW. I suggest you spend tomorrow thinking about how to approach them and what you need to negotiate to survive all of this.

Your reply in post 3 is of course, misleading in that you suggest that your debts are with another bank. You are taking posters here for mugs too, wasting peoples time on replying to wrong facts. I suggest that you should break this behaviour pattern, because it will always catch you and usually sooner rather than later.

jonnyd281

I wonder if they can sieze your sharesave to offset against your debts, it would be worth investigating that as well.

Braintree

I'm intrigued why the bank would choose now to take the money though? (Sorry I admit this isn't helping the OP) How long has the OP been working for them? Was the debt occurred before or after they started working there? Were they really allowed to carry on working for the bank once the debt was in place? Does the OP even work in a finance role?

For example I'm looking at a career in archives. Some banking groups have archives if I were to work with an archive in a bank that I owed money to could they just take my wages to offset my debts?

I expect they don't take too kindly to the wages going into another bank account as well!

SarEl

Braintree wrote: »

I'm intrigued why the bank would choose now to take the money though? (Sorry I admit this isn't helping the OP) How long has the OP been working for them? Was the debt occurred before or after they started working there? Were they really allowed to carry on working for the bank once the debt was in place? Does the OP even work in a finance role?

For example I'm looking at a career in archives. Some banking groups have archives if I were to work with an archive in a bank that I owed money to could they just take my wages to offset my debts?

I expect they don't take too kindly to the wages going into another bank account as well!

No, we are going a little OTT here! This isn't about having "debts" - lots of people, including bank staff, have debts. I debt is simply money that you owe. The issue is about defaulting - in other words it is about taking on debt that you cannot manage. Because having debt that you cannot manage makes you vulnerable in the eyes of the bank, so being in default would matter no matter who you owed the money to. Before people are employed in banks there are a series of checks performed - CRB and credit checking at the very least. And at least one bank I know (and I would bet others too) require staff to inform the employer if they go into default on debts. And these things apply whether you work for the bank or for any company with access to bank premises. So you could be the cleaner, the external IT support company, or the electrician - it would still matter.

This is because if you are in financial trouble, you may be a risk - you have passwords, access to premises, access to knowledge... all sorts of things that if you were tempted you may use to make money! So, for example, in an archive there is information about, let's say, customers, or maybe even the internal investigation of the conduct of the last MD. What if you were tempted to use this information to blackmail someone?

I know that these are extremes, but they are possibilities, and the bank needs to ensure that they close any avenue to puting other people and their money at risk. It only takes one case of something going wrong and the bank being liable....

Of course, I am sure that the reality in this case is much more simple - they bank are duly !!!!ed at the fact that the OP is "saving" for their own benefit, whilst owing them money that they cannot or will not pay back. I am no fan of banks and financial institutions, and I am very critical of the way in which they encourage indebtedness. But the fact is that they are dealing with adults, and as adults, we all know what we are getting ourselves in to when we take on a debt. And that means that if we have a debt, it is our responsibility to pay it back even when that is a struggle and it means no savings, no nights out and no new clothes.

keatsy21

WOW this hasn't gone the way I had expected. Firstly I apologise if I have made anybody feel like a mug as that was by no means my intention. Secondly I posted this in the hope that somebody could help me with the legality of the position I may be in and not the morality of it. Yes I have defaulted and I do not blame the bank in any way for it however I don't think anybody has the right to judge me on here as they do not know all the facts. I am actually paying back the debt I have to the bank I work for through a debt collection agency so as much as in the past I have made mistakes, I don't know anybody who is perfect, I am now trying to rectify these. The sharesave scheme I have done is in the hope that if I can make enough I will clear all my debts and if this is not enough then whatever returns I do get I will be putting straight in to my debt, including the £100p/m, so I do not feel I am walking away from my responsibility.

If ANYBODY has any real advice on the situation I would be very grateful to receive it. If you would rather slate me for not being perfect and in the past not living up to my responsibilities then I politely ask you to refrain.

Thanks

SarEl

It's very simple, and I said this right at the start. The legality of it is pretty irrelevant. You have defaulted on a debt that you owe your employer. Posession is 9/10ths of the law. So you might be legally right - although many banks do have clauses to recover money you owe them directly through salary deductions - but what exactly do you think you are going to be able to do about it? Yes, if you are legally right then you could take your employer to a tribunal. Good luck with that. I would expect the round of disciplinaries leading to your dismissal any time soon. It isn't all that hard to find just cause to dismiss when an employer starts looking for one - nobody is that squeaky clean that an employer can't find cause. The bank are probably taking the same view that people here have - that you have a surplus income that allows you to save and this isn't on when you owe them money. They have no idea why you might be saving, and they have no guarantees that you would hand over any money gained, do they? So the views expressed, whether you like them or not, are legitmate views - you are best clearing your debt and showing that you want to do so. Because things could get worse - a lot worse - and it would be silly to get into that situation and potentially loose a lot more.

DVardysShadow

keatsy21 wrote: »

WOW this hasn't gone the way I had expected. Firstly I apologise if I have made anybody feel like a mug as that was by no means my intention. Secondly I posted this in the hope that somebody could help me with the legality of the position I may be in and not the morality of it. Yes I have defaulted and I do not blame the bank in any way for it however I don't think anybody has the right to judge me on here as they do not know all the facts. I am actually paying back the debt I have to the bank I work for through a debt collection agency so as much as in the past I have made mistakes, I don't know anybody who is perfect, I am now trying to rectify these. The sharesave scheme I have done is in the hope that if I can make enough I will clear all my debts and if this is not enough then whatever returns I do get I will be putting straight in to my debt, including the £100p/m, so I do not feel I am walking away from my responsibility.

If ANYBODY has any real advice on the situation I would be very grateful to receive it. If you would rather slate me for not being perfect and in the past not living up to my responsibilities then I politely ask you to refrain.

Thanks

Your mistake was to believe that these forums will lap up humbug. This is not so much to do with morality and everything to do with the consequences of feeding everyone with humbug.

The real advice is to avoid humbug. Unfortunately, it won't help you with the immediate problem, but in the longer term, it may serve you well. So I will slate you for living in humbug in the past and encourage you to avoid it in future

mariefab

As DVardysShadow touched on earlier; whatever deductions they make shouldn't leave you with less than the NMW.

Braintree

SarEl wrote: »

No, we are going a little OTT here! This isn't about having "debts" - lots of people, including bank staff, have debts. I debt is simply money that you owe. The issue is about defaulting - in other words it is about taking on debt that you cannot manage. Because having debt that you cannot manage makes you vulnerable in the eyes of the bank, so being in default would matter no matter who you owed the money to. Before people are employed in banks there are a series of checks performed - CRB and credit checking at the very least. And at least one bank I know (and I would bet others too) require staff to inform the employer if they go into default on debts. And these things apply whether you work for the bank or for any company with access to bank premises. So you could be the cleaner, the external IT support company, or the electrician - it would still matter.

This is because if you are in financial trouble, you may be a risk - you have passwords, access to premises, access to knowledge... all sorts of things that if you were tempted you may use to make money! So, for example, in an archive there is information about, let's say, customers, or maybe even the internal investigation of the conduct of the last MD. What if you were tempted to use this information to blackmail someone?

I know that these are extremes, but they are possibilities, and the bank needs to ensure that they close any avenue to puting other people and their money at risk. It only takes one case of something going wrong and the bank being liable....

Of course, I am sure that the reality in this case is much more simple - they bank are duly !!!!ed at the fact that the OP is "saving" for their own benefit, whilst owing them money that they cannot or will not pay back. I am no fan of banks and financial institutions, and I am very critical of the way in which they encourage indebtedness. But the fact is that they are dealing with adults, and as adults, we all know what we are getting ourselves in to when we take on a debt. And that means that if we have a debt, it is our responsibility to pay it back even when that is a struggle and it means no savings, no nights out and no new clothes.

Thanks for that, sorry I thought any debt could lead to issues if you worked in the financial industry, not the more serious issue of defaults!

I find that quite interesting about blackmail being a concern; does that apply to all levels of debt? For example, as a recent graduate, I owe about £3000; something that could be 'easily' paid back once in full time, reasonably paid employment. Am I just as risky as someone who owes £300,000? I can't imagine blackmailing anyone let alone over what is a small, in bank terms, debt.

What I'm still intrigued by is why the bank have chosen now to take the OPs salary to offset a defaulted debt? Why wasn't it taken as soon as the OP defaulted or is there a set time that a bank can do this (i.e if the debt isn't paid back after six months we can take the salary)

Again, apologies for not helping the OP, but this is an issue I'm sure many are unaware of, or perhaps just me.

DVardysShadow

Braintree wrote: »

...

What I'm still intrigued by is why the bank have chosen now to take the OPs salary to offset a defaulted debt? Why wasn't it taken as soon as the OP defaulted or is there a set time that a bank can do this (i.e if the debt isn't paid back after six months we can take the salary)

Again, apologies for not helping the OP, but this is an issue I'm sure many are unaware of, or perhaps just me.

I doubt there are many rules to be observed here. It is just the rules of Civil Law bluff. Doubtless OP could take his employer to Employment Tribunal or to the Small Claims Court and get an order for repayment of the deducted money. But equally, the bank could take him to court in response and get an order for repayment of the defaulted loan. So no skin off the bank's nose, but grief for the OP and no real point in fighting it. About all the OP would win on is if the bank took his pay below NMW.

As for the time it has taken, my feeling is that the bank have probably known about this since day 1 of employment, but have wanted to be sure. Also, I suspect that they have left this until enough money built up in the sharesave account. I suspect over the next week or so OP is going to come under great pressure to relinquish the money put aside in the sharesave account.