Ex-employer chasing study expenses

Clive_Woody

WellKnownSid wrote: »

I put it to you that a training contract is standard practice within the industry, your role, and well documented, including within the handbook you acknowledge. I further put it to you that you had intended to take the training, and had the contract been presented to you at the time, you would have signed it. Unless you have some evidence to suggest that you wouldn't have signed under those terms, that would surely be the balance of probabilities.

Which raises the question why a training contract was not used here when it is clear that by paying the invoice the company fully intended to fund the training and the company clearly documents in it's policies that training contracts will be used and as you state yourself it is an industry standard.

I put it to you that if the employee had been made aware that the company wished to claw back the funding for the training if he resigned then he would not have agreed to attend this training at this time. As the employee was not presented with a training contract (detailing the claw back policy) when the company decided to fund this training they cannot retrospectively enforce a policy that they failed to follow themselves. The terms and conditions in the training contract cannot be enforced without both parties agreeing to them.

WellKnownSid

Clive_Woody wrote: »

when it is clear that by paying the invoice the company fully intended to fund the training

Let's say you order a shiny new mobile phone from a supplier, without authority, and your company subsequently pays the invoice. Are you suggesting that, as a matter of principle, by paying the invoice your employer has fully intended to fund your phone purchase?

Clive_Woody

WellKnownSid wrote: »

Let's say you order a shiny new mobile phone from a supplier, without authority, and your company subsequently pays the invoice. Are you suggesting that, as a matter of principle, by paying the invoice your employer has fully intended to fund your phone purchase?

But we are not talking about a phone. The company approved the training and paid the invoice, this is not being disputed. The OP even stated that his company dictated which course provider he should use.

Unless they are now claiming he signed up for the training (and fraudulently had the invoice sent to them which they then paid) without their approval or knowledge then this is surely theft and should be reported to the police. as a criminal matter

WellKnownSid

Clive_Woody wrote: »

But we are not talking about a phone. The company approved the training and paid the invoice, this is not being disputed. The OP even stated that his company dictated which course provider he should use.

Unless they are now claiming he signed up for the training (and fraudulently had the invoice sent to them which they then paid) without their approval or knowledge then this is surely theft and should be reported to the police. as a criminal matter

But you agree in principle? It was an existing supplier - and that supplier sent a valid invoice - the OP did attend the course. At that point all the company could do was pay the invoice - how could they dispute it? Ostensible authority and all that - it was not up to the supplier to vet the trainees.

I fully appreciated that this administrative error has landed the company with a problem, but fraud or not - the police aren't going to help them.

What the company is going to have to do is invoice the ex-employee, and if they don't pay they'll have to take them to court. Which is exactly the process they're following.

Clive_Woody

WellKnownSid wrote: »

But you agree in principle? It was an existing supplier - and that supplier sent a valid invoice - the OP did attend the course. At that point all the company could do was pay the invoice - how could they dispute it? Ostensible authority and all that - it was not up to the supplier to vet the trainees.

I fully appreciated that this administrative error has landed the company with a problem, but fraud or not - the police aren't going to help them.

What the company is going to have to do is invoice the ex-employee, and if they don't pay they'll have to take them to court. Which is exactly the process they're following.

I agree in principle that they have little or no chance of making a successful claim in court because they made an "administrative error " and did not follow their own documented procedures.

The "administrative error " was not getting the employee to sign a training contract therefore making him aware that the company would claim back costs if he resigned.

The company now want to ignore this "administrative error " and enforce terms contained in a contract that their employee was never presented with (or agreed to) and therefore was not aware of when he agreed to attend the training that the company wanted him to complete.

The OP stated that training company his employer told him to use were more expensive than other providers and if he been aware of a claw-back clause he would most likely have selected a different provider.

The company have shot them self in the foot by sending an employee on a training course but failing to get him to sign a contract making him aware of the financial implications of agreeing to attend the training.

redpete

moblie120 wrote: »

The Company may, at its discretion in appropriate cases, agree to fund certain training and in those instances, signature of a training contract will be required.

Three posts each cut and paste from elsewhere. You're an idiot.

RJH88

Clive_Woody wrote: »

I put it to you that if the employee had been made aware that the company wished to claw back the funding for the training if he resigned then he would not have agreed to attend this training at this time. As the employee was not presented with a training contract (detailing the claw back policy) when the company decided to fund this training they cannot retrospectively enforce a policy that they failed to follow themselves. The terms and conditions in the training contract cannot be enforced without both parties agreeing to them.

If the company would have provided me with the contract with the details of what must be repaid, etc then I would not have continued with it and would have chose to continue my self-study with a distance learning college

RJH88

redpete wrote: »

Three posts each cut and paste from elsewhere. You're an idiot.

Actually this was the original post form myself straight from my ex-employee's handbook

harryfrombarry_2

WellKnownSid wrote: »

I refer the court to BigCorp vs Jones (use of company paper clips after termination of employment, 1965).

What on earth are you talking about?

WellKnownSid

harryfrombarry wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about?

The point I was making is that they'll present the facts, along with paperwork that shows they'll only pay if the OP is in possession of a training contract (no such contract exists), backed up by case law.

The OP will state that it's all terribly unfair. They will further confuse their defence by raising the consumer credit act. Again. Then the OP will state that "If the company would have provided me with the contract with the details of what must be repaid, etc then I would not have continued with it".

At this point the judge may ask for further information. The plaintiff will show that, out of 789 training contracts issued by the company between 2008 and 2015 - all 789 were signed and returned. The judge will probably conclude that if the company had provided such a contract, then the OP would have in all likelihood have signed it anyway.

In all the confusion, the OP will lose.

Needs advice. The right words. The OP won't be getting a lot of time to put their reasoned case forward...