Ex-employer chasing study expenses

Clive_Woody

WellKnownSid wrote: »

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...

So you are back trying to claim that a judge will enforce terms in a contract that the OP was never presented with or signed.

We've already established the facts that the company approved the OP going on this training, they picked the provider for him, paid the bill but never asked the OP to sign a contract detailing reimbursement of training costs if he left the company. They now want to try and enforce terms in a contract that was never agreed. I am sure the judge will laugh this one out of court.

I love your claim that the judge will assume that the OP would have signed the contract, if the company had not forgotten to follow it's own policies, therefore it is enforceable. Makes you wonder why anyone ever bothers with contracts if judges can just assume that people would sign them despite having never seen them. Now that would be a fun bit of legislation.

WellKnownSid

Clive_Woody wrote: »

I love your claim that the judge will assume that the OP would have signed the contract, if the company had not forgotten to follow it's own policies, therefore it is enforceable. Makes you wonder why anyone ever bothers with contracts if judges can just assume that people would sign them despite having never seen them. Now that would be a fun bit of legislation.

The OP was told by the company that they weren't liable unless a training contract was in place...

As an aside, I have actually been to court where the plaintiff argued that I would have signed something, that it was always my intention to sign, and tried to hold me to the terms of a contract that I not only hadn't signed, that in fact I had proven didn't exist [in writing] until six months after the job was completed. As an aside, had I not taken expert legal advice, I would have lost the case.

You do not need to explain to me how wrong / unfair / unjust / nasty / rotten / mean / dodgy this situation is to me - I fully appreciate where you're coming from, but that's not the issue here. What's needed is a robust argument that will wash with the court if the OP gets their two hours of fame.

Clive_Woody

WellKnownSid wrote: »

The OP was told by the company that they weren't liable unless a training contract was in place...

As an aside, I have actually been to court where the plaintiff argued that I would have signed something, that it was always my intention to sign, and tried to hold me to the terms of a contract that I not only hadn't signed, that in fact I had proven didn't exist [in writing] until six months after the job was completed. As an aside, had I not taken expert legal advice, I would have lost the case.

You do not need to explain to me how wrong / unfair / unjust / nasty / rotten / mean / dodgy this situation is to me - I fully appreciate where you're coming from, but that's not the issue here. What's needed is a robust argument that will wash with the court if the OP gets their two hours of fame.

Not at all, the company accepted liability for the cost of the training by sending the OP to their chosen trainer and paying the costs on his behalf. They failed to follow their own policy and make the employee aware of the implications of accepting this training, yet now they want to try and enforce a contract that the OP never saw or agreed to.

It was the responsibility of the company to enact this contract between themselves and the OP. They cannot simply fall back on some vague language in an employee handbook that contains no details of the terms in said contract. Someone in the company c*cked up and now they are grasping at straws trying to get the money back.

WellKnownSid

Clive_Woody wrote: »

Someone in the company c*cked up and now they are grasping at straws trying to get the money back.

Happens all the time. And as I say, they'll probably get away with it because they've hired the lawyers and the OP hasn't...

RJH88

Thanks for all of your replies- The claimant decided to go to court, we were both contacted by the mediation service to come to an agreement before we went to court but I was told the defendant did not come back to them to confirm the provisional appointment.


A week later I have just received a letter from the claimants solicitors suggesting we resolve out of court and they would accept a lump sum of £1,600 (there original demand is £3000) in the next 21 days.


Anyone have any thoughts of this?


My plan for mediation was to offer them £700 (Costs of £500 I accept for exams + £700 I would have paid for the alternative course I would have studied with should they have followed procedure/explained costs - £500 they have already deducted from my final pay = £700)


How should I response to the solicitors, they have emailed me as well, do I need to respond in writing and serve a notice to the claimant?

andyfromotley

I have always thought that they were on very shaky ground with this.

However, how do you feel about the proposal?

My only view is that you should set the terms of the deal not their solicitor. You have worked out what seems (to you) a fair and equitable settlement of £700. Write, setting out your offer and the reasoning behind it. Get them responding to you rather than the other way around.

Ultimately only you know what your comfort point is in relation to this matter. i would be tempted to say. This is my offer, its fair and reasonable. I am not prepared to pay more so you either accept or take me to court. (they havent seemed to keen to get you there despite all of thier bluster. I think this new tack may be after thier solicitor has said 'you're probably not gonna win this one...try for an out of court settlement.) But of course that runs the risk that they might follow trough and take you to court!!

Depends how you feel about it really.

Clive_Woody

andyfromotley wrote: »

I have always thought that they were on very shaky ground with this.

However, how do you feel about the proposal?

My only view is that you should set the terms of the deal not their solicitor. You have worked out what seems (to you) a fair and equitable settlement of £700. Write, setting out your offer and the reasoning behind it. Get them responding to you rather than the other way around.

Ultimately only you know what your comfort point is in relation to this matter. i would be tempted to say. This is my offer, its fair and reasonable. I am not prepared to pay more so you either accept or take me to court. (they havent seemed to keen to get you there despite all of thier bluster. I think this new tack may be after thier solicitor has said 'you're probably not gonna win this one...try for an out of court settlement.) But of course that runs the risk that they might follow trough and take you to court!!

Depends how you feel about it really.

I would suggest you make a full and final offer of what you think is reasonable.

RJH88

They have not explained how they come this figure though I suspect it is 50% of what they feel I currently owe them, when I received the court correspondence in the post it a little less than double this figure.


I feel my offer of £788 is fair and as much as I am willing to pay, this is what I will offer them as a gesture of my willingness to compromise, plus I will provide a calculation to back this up.


If I offer this do I have to pay off in full? This wouldn't be ideal for me

Clive_Woody

RJH88 wrote: »

They have not explained how they come this figure though I suspect it is 50% of what they feel I currently owe them, when I received the court correspondence in the post it a little less than double this figure.


I feel my offer of £788 is fair and as much as I am willing to pay, this is what I will offer them as a gesture of my willingness to compromise, plus I will provide a calculation to back this up.


If I offer this do I have to pay off in full? This wouldn't be ideal for me

If you make an offer I suspect they will want payment within 21 days (maybe less). They might consider a payment plan but this might be pushing your luck.

d70cw6

tell them to go !!!! themselves.