overpayment and banked hours

haltom

I resigned from a company in March 2010 I left with two weeks overpayment and 400 banked hours.

Now the history behind the two amounts is the company reduced my wage by 10% for 9 months which equates to more than the overpayment in wage so I feel this is more than covered.

regarding the banked hours I actually owed 443 hours and managed to reduce this by 43 before I left but the company were only offering 4 hours a week overtime to pay the amount back and I had to travel a 113 mile round trip and so I was unable to do the hours on a regular basis.

Now when I left, the union said that the hours could not be converted to cash and that the company had never asked for the payment after conversion of hours.

So were I am now is the company is asking for both amounts in cash I have asked for details of why and were etc but they insist I must pay even threatening personal bankruptcy against me. The amount is for just under £4000 now what im asking is how much is reasonable to offer in either monthly payments or a reduced amount lump sum.

I would if I had support fight against the amounts but I don't the cash I left owing hours not cash but any how any advice would be appreciated and pleas dont preach to me the details are complicated I have simplified it to find a resolution so I can move on P.S I am not well off I have the usual debts mortgage etc.

agrinnall

Regarding the overpayment, the previous reduction in wages has no bearing on this, if you continued to work after the reduction then presumably you accepted the new rate. I'd say they are entitled to ask for the overpayment to be repaid in full.

I don't really understand how you can owe 400 hours, but if you don't want to explain then we'll take it as fact. I'm afraid I don't know what the legal situation is or whether you union was correct, but I'd say you need advice from a solicitor who specialises in employment law to clarify whether you do or don't owe the company for this time.

haltom

I thank you for your response but what I am asking is what is a fair figure/sum to offer for repayment

agrinnall

I can't answer that because I don't know whether a repayment is required for the banked hours. If it isn't then you should only repay the overpayment; if it is, then morally you owe them the full amount, but only you can decide whether you want to try to pay less than that.

marybelle01

haltom wrote: »

I thank you for your response but what I am asking is what is a fair figure/sum to offer for repayment

If they owed you money, I assume that "what they owe" would be the answer? So "what you owe" is the answer.

You are being disingenuous here. This is not overpayment and banked hours - it is overpayment and overpayment. What you are describing is some form of annualised hours, where you are paid monthly a fixed sum and can work the hours at any time during the year. So you took a months pay and walked out half way through the month (thus owing two weeks payment), and in the part of the year you worked you were paid for hours that you hadn't worked and left before you had worked (so this is a second overpayment).

Your journey to work is irrelevant - if you couldn't "do the hours" then you shouldn't have taken the job. The purported pay cut is irrelevant - the rate of pay is the rate of pay and you accepted that rate of pay by continuing to work for nine months, so nothing is "covered".

Everyone has bills etc., to pay. That is no excuse. You took money which you were not entitled to take and failed to work the hours that you were required to to earn that money. Did you really expect that employers pay you for work that you don't do and leave it at that?

patman99

What does the contract for the job with the banked hours say about the banked hours?.

We had this where I used to work and the rules were that banked hours could not be reclaimed should the employee leave through resignation, dismissal or redundancy. Your former employer might have had the same clause in place.
You need to obtain (via a solicitor if needed) a copy of the contract of employment that you originally signed.

haltom

marybelle01 wrote: »

If they owed you money, I assume that "what they owe" would be the answer? So "what you owe" is the answer.

You are being disingenuous here. This is not overpayment and banked hours - it is overpayment and overpayment. What you are describing is some form of annualised hours, where you are paid monthly a fixed sum and can work the hours at any time during the year. So you took a months pay and walked out half way through the month (thus owing two weeks payment), and in the part of the year you worked you were paid for hours that you hadn't worked and left before you had worked (so this is a second overpayment).

Your journey to work is irrelevant - if you couldn't "do the hours" then you shouldn't have taken the job. The purported pay cut is irrelevant - the rate of pay is the rate of pay and you accepted that rate of pay by continuing to work for nine months, so nothing is "covered".

Everyone has bills etc., to pay. That is no excuse. You took money which you were not entitled to take and failed to work the hours that you were required to to earn that money. Did you really expect that employers pay you for work that you don't do and leave it at that?

You have no idea regarding the banked hours and I would be very careful on accusing someone of something without knowing the full facts I presume you read the no preaching part of my post.

haltom

patman99 wrote: »

What does the contract for the job with the banked hours say about the banked hours?.

We had this where I used to work and the rules were that banked hours could not be reclaimed should the employee leave through resignation, dismissal or redundancy. Your former employer might have had the same clause in place.
You need to obtain (via a solicitor if needed) a copy of the contract of employment that you originally signed.

It says when an associate leaves the company by basically any means the company will do what it can to reduce the banked hours to Zero before they leave . It then states the company MAY ask for the balance back through legal channels The company is a large automotive firm in crewe

Scorpio33

haltom wrote: »

I thank you for your response but what I am asking is what is a fair figure/sum to offer for repayment

So you owe them two weeks wages and 400 hours.

So what you owe is your hourlyw wage x 400 hours + 2 weeks wages. If that equates to £4000, then you owe £4000.

How much do you pay them? The honest answer is whatever you can afford.

Even if that is instalments of £10 a month until it is repaid, as long as you can only afford that amount, they normally accept. I can't remember, but I think there is legislation stating they have to accept any reasonable offer - and reasonable is what you can afford.

marybelle01

haltom wrote: »

You have no idea regarding the banked hours and I would be very careful on accusing someone of something without knowing the full facts I presume you read the no preaching part of my post.

Where is anything I said wrong or preaching? You owe them money. The contract says that if the hours cannot be reduced to zero, then they may take legal action to recover them. So you owe them the money and you owe them the hours. It was you who was making excuses. Them cutting the pay nine months before you left does not mean you are covered for the overpayment you received. You having to travel a long way to work is not a reason that you shouldn't owe them hours. You asked for opinions and you got them. You did not answer my question though. If they owed you money, how much of it would you expect them to pay. Some of it or all of it? It's the same answer when you owe them money.

marybelle01

Scorpio33 wrote: »

I can't remember, but I think there is legislation stating they have to accept any reasonable offer - and reasonable is what you can afford.

The reason you can't remember is because it doesn't exist. If the OP is taken to court (which will result in them ending up owing even more money) then the court will allow them to pay what IT thinks is reasonable by assessing income and expenditure. However when that happens the court also decides what it thinks is reasonable expenditure and that doesn't include much. So things like any holidays, weekends away, nights out, TV packages etc are not on the list. It is a very basic list with strict limits on cash. The last time I looked, for example (and it wasn't long ago) I think they allowed £30 for a single person for all food and other expenses, travel to and from work, and the like. It isn't an easy option.