Excel parking unfair fine

Bircho

AlexisV wrote: »

So you'll know that not every clause is legal and enforceable just because it's in a signed contract?

The issue would probably come down to whether the invoice is enforceable or not. After all, if (for example) Kwik Fit sent an invoice for £200 for work agreed at £100, and the employee told the company it was wrong, could the company ignore him and take the £200?

If you have the quote in writing then obviously not. But given that I would have signed up to the parking scheme which clearly states that if I don't display a permit I will be charged £x then that is different.

Bircho

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Even if an employee had signed it, they could still state that it's an unfair contract clause if you tried to rely upon it a couple of years later.

Case Law please.

ManxRed

I can't provide case law as such, but an obvious example is a restrictive covenant preventing employees from working in certain areas/markets/competitors for a period following termination.

Many contracts have this clause in, but we all know that they are only held valid (if challenged) in a very limited set of circumstances.

AlexisV

So, you are granted permission to park and if you fail to display written permission to park at the time you must pay £50?

How is that not a contractual penalty clause?

bazster

Bircho wrote: »

Which does take me back to my original statement before I even looked at this change, which was that if there is an explicit statement in the Contract of Employment, or signed policy document or other document, that states the company will deduct any parking charges from the employees salary or wages, then this would be legal.

And as I replied at the time, such a clause would be tantamount to this:

"You (the employee) agree that if anyone presents us (the employer) with any invoice allegedly relating to your use of the vehicle, we will pay it without question and deduct the sum from your wages. We will make no effort whatsoever to establish the authenticity or legitimacy of any such invoice and will give you no opportunity to contest or dispute it."

And if you think that this (or something which implies the same thing) is enforceable at law then you and your company are heading for a world of pain.

Do you have lawyers? If so, I suggest you consult them before Monday.

Bircho

ManxRed wrote: »

I can't provide case law as such, but an obvious example is a restrictive covenant preventing employees from working in certain areas/markets/competitors for a period following termination.

Many contracts have this clause in, but we all know that they are only held valid (if challenged) in a very limited set of circumstances.

But that would involve the employer sueing the ex employee. It a bit similar to your contract stating you have to give 4 weeks notice but you not turning up after a couple of days. The company would have to sue and show their losses from you leaving without notice.

Here were are talking about an explicit contract term allowing a deduction from wages that the employee has agreed to. Similarly, if you are provided with a company vehicle, the company would be allowed to deduct any insurance excesses should you have an accident. It is then up to you to try and recover these if you felt that you were not a fault, for example. There is nothing illegal about these under the Employment Rights Act.

bazster

Bircho wrote: »

If you have the quote in writing then obviously not. But given that I would have signed up to the parking scheme which clearly states that if I don't display a permit I will be charged £x then that is different.

It so isn't. Unenforceable contractual penalties are unenforceable contractual penalties, and unfair contract terms are unfair contract terms. The signature on the contract is irrelevant.

Bircho

bazster wrote: »

And as I replied at the time, such a clause would be tantamount to this:

"You (the employee) agree that if anyone presents us (the employer) with any invoice allegedly relating to your use of the vehicle, we will pay it without question and deduct the sum from your wages. We will make no effort whatsoever to establish the authenticity or legitimacy of any such invoice and will give you no opportunity to contest or dispute it."

And if you think that this (or something which implies the same thing) is enforceable at law then you and your company are heading for a world of pain.

Absolutely. As a previous poster said a current hire car agreement allows them to charge your credit card for any charges incurred whilst driving the vehicle and it is up to you to recover the costs back if you think it was wrong. There would be nothing wrong with putting a term in as you suggest, although it definately wouldn't be phrased as you have put, and then it would be up to you to recover them back. As it stands under the Employment Rights Act, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it as I see it (unless you can provide me with Case Law otherwise but I have never found any and I would be very intrested if you did).

I should add I am not supporting or otherwise the actions, I am just on a public forum joining a debate where I think wrong advise was passed on to someone. The advise originally given would have almost certainly been thrown out after ET3 submission.

Bircho

bazster wrote: »

It so isn't. Unenforceable contractual penalties are unenforceable contractual penalties, and unfair contract terms are unfair contract terms. The signature on the contract is irrelevant.

Again Case Law in relation to Employment Law, please.

bazster

Bircho wrote: »

But that would involve the employer sueing the ex employee. It a bit similar to your contract stating you have to give 4 weeks notice but you not turning up after a couple of days. The company would have to sue and show their losses from you leaving without notice.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that there is a substantive legal difference between (i) an unenforceable contract clause in which the party relying on it would need to sue to attempt to enforce it, and (ii) an unenforceable contract clause where the party relying on it is in a position to help itself to the money without sueing?

I mean, seriously? Can't you see that there is no difference in law? Both clauses are unenforceable - the only difference is that in one case it is much easier than the other to act illegally.

Geez, I'm done with you. I just pity your employees and thank my lucky stars I'm not one of them.