Work funded higher eduction

watpoae

Evening all,

I work in the civil service and three years ago I started a degree which has been funded by the government agency I work for.

Despite graduating now the chance of a promotion is still minimal due to cut backs, and at times working there has become unbearable.

In the rules of my employment it states that if I leave my job and do not go into another government department within 2 years of completing my education I could be liable to pay back the fees.

Does anyone have an experience of this please? Would they definitely demand the money back if I left? I've heard of friends of friends etc doing the same in other departments and they didn't get asked for it back.

If they do demand it back, do they require a lump sum or is it staggered over time?

The easiest option would be to ask the HR team but that'd make it quite obvious that I wanted to leave then!

Many thanks.

sarahlasvegas

You say "rules" - is this in your contract, or was it a training agreement you signed?

My workplace and most have the same, think we call it a claw back clause..(might be wrong) - i know people 5 years ago that got away with it - however, now they have to pay back every penny!

Generally its from your last pay, or you set up a payment agreement.

Id be thinking myself lucky i got a degree for free - can you maybe look to switch departments or any chance of a secondment, be it not a promotion if theres none going?

watpoae

sarahlasvegas wrote: »

You say "rules" - is this in your contract, or was it a training agreement you signed?

My workplace and most have the same, think we call it a claw back clause..(might be wrong) - i know people 5 years ago that got away with it - however, now they have to pay back every penny!

Generally its from your last pay, or you set up a payment agreement.

Id be thinking myself lucky i got a degree for free - can you maybe look to switch departments or any chance of a secondment, be it not a promotion if theres none going?

There was an application form for it where it stated the 2 year thing, I had to enter all my details about the course etc and sign it at the end.

The information about the rules etc is in the staff handbook.

To be honest there's not much about around my area. My office is only small and the public sector in general has totally sapped the life out of me. It has many perks but I enjoyed working alot better in the private sector despite less security.. and holidays!

KiKi

Yes, they can, and with all the concerns now about money in the public sector, it seems highly likely they will take it back. It doesn't need to be in your contract to be enforceable - the handbook is enough (it forms part of your contract).

They may try to take it out of your final pay, but with enough notice and organisation, you might be able to stagger it. I also believe (although I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that debts to organisations (if your final pay doesn't cover the amount) can be recovered through the county court, so it's one that has to be paid.

KiKi

watpoae

KiKi wrote: »

Yes, they can, and with all the concerns now about money in the public sector, it seems highly likely they will take it back. It doesn't need to be in your contract to be enforceable - the handbook is enough (it forms part of your contract).

They may try to take it out of your final pay, but with enough notice and organisation, you might be able to stagger it. I also believe (although I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that debts to organisations (if your final pay doesn't cover the amount) can be recovered through the county court, so it's one that has to be paid.

KiKi

Thanks. I think my final pay packet would just fall short, if I chose not to inform the relevant section I was leaving (providing my manager didn't also), would I more than likely be given the opportunity of paying off the difference before it was taken to court and ccj's etc brought into the equation?

KiKi

watpoae wrote: »

Thanks. I think my final pay packet would just fall short, if I chose not to inform the relevant section I was leaving (providing my manager didn't also), would I more than likely be given the opportunity of paying off the difference before it was taken to court and ccj's etc brought into the equation?

I don't know the workings of a court, but it would seem to be stupid of them not to contact you first. I'm sure they'd contact you. When I worked in the public sector that was the approach.

KiKi

SarEl

KiKi wrote: »

It doesn't need to be in your contract to be enforceable - the handbook is enough (it forms part of your contract).

KiKi

Sorry - this is incorrect - a clawback in a training agreement must be signed to be enforceable - but in this case the application formed the basis of the training agreement and in signing it the OP has agreed to the term.

KiKi

SarEl wrote: »

Sorry - this is incorrect - a clawback in a training agreement must be signed to be enforceable - but in this case the application formed the basis of the training agreement and in signing it the OP has agreed to the term.

Really? So how does that work, then?

I don't understand how a policy in the handbook (on maternity pay, or use of the internet for example) can be part of your contract, but a policy on professional sponsorship wouldn't be binding. Is there a specific reason for this?

Glad to hear the signed application constitutes this, though, as every organisation I know that does this doesn't get a training agreement signed, just the initial application!!

Thanks for the correction!

KiKi

Oldernotwiser

As you obviously have no sense of responsibility for having accepted public funding for your degree and are now planning to renege on your agreement to remain in the sector, I hope you do leave and go elsewhere. The public sector can do without unscrupulous people like you!

SarEl

KiKi wrote: »

Really? So how does that work, then?

I don't understand how a policy in the handbook (on maternity pay, or use of the internet for example) can be part of your contract, but a policy on professional sponsorship wouldn't be binding. Is there a specific reason for this?

Glad to hear the signed application constitutes this, though, as every organisation I know that does this doesn't get a training agreement signed, just the initial application!!

Thanks for the correction!

KiKi

It is obvious and you already know the answer if you think about it. This isn't a general contractual term (because not everyone will do training) and it is a deduction from wages (which unless it is one of the "defined in law deductions" like payroll errors) and/or a "credit agreement" - a debt that you willingly take on. So a training agreement which involves a clawback of costs must conform to certain rules, one of which is that you agree to the terms. Simples.

KiKi

SarEl wrote: »

It is obvious and you already know the answer if you think about it. This isn't a general contractual term (because not everyone will do training) and it is a deduction from wages (which unless it is one of the "defined in law deductions" like payroll errors) and/or a "credit agreement" - a debt that you willingly take on. So a training agreement which involves a clawback of costs must conform to certain rules, one of which is that you agree to the terms. Simples.

I wouldn't have known that, actually! I'd work on the basis that not everyone will use mat leave, for eg, just as not everyone will use a professional sponsorship. But I would assume that all the T&Cs in the handbook apply to anyone who *does* take them, and that any financial penalties incurred would be part of that.

So now I've learnt something.
KiKi