Old Job demanding money

Twopints

Ask for copies of the "numerous requests"

Bay

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

This is what is required, but as they have engaged solicitors, let them run with solicitors. At this stage, which is correspondence, the solicitor will be costing the employer. And there is another good reason to write to the solicitor rather than the ex-employer further down this post. So I would go with

Dear <solicitor>

I refer to your letter of <date> concerning your allegation that I owe <amount> to <ex-employer>.

You refer to 'numerous requests' being made for this money. However, you are advised that no correspondence whatsoever has been received prior to your present letter neither from <ex-employer> nor from yourselves.

So I would request that you provide a full explanation and justification of the amount alleged to be owing at you earliest convenience.

Yours <MrrLucky>


As the amount is relatively small, just put it to one side for the event that you lose this.

You should not cave in before a CCJ if you believe you are right, purely to protect your credit rating. The recording of CCJ's is arranged to let you have a genuine dispute resolved in court without affecting your credit rating. If you lose, you just pay up within a month of the judgement and your credit rating will not be affected.

There is a way to go with this before it goes to court. If you send the letter to the solicitor as I suggest, they will need to answer it before sending the matter to court - if you write to the employer instead, they may not send a copy to the solicitor who may just go to court without further reference.

And finally on a matter like this, it is not a good idea to post the exact amount of the claim on this site, because the other side could identify you quite easily. Far better to state an amount in terms like 'between £70 and £90'. Unfortunately, too late to edit your post because other posters have quoted the amount. Perhaps these people would edit the exact amount out of their posts?

If you choose to use a letter drafted by someone else, check for spelling (and other) mistakes eg 'So I would request that you provide a full explanation and justification of the amount alleged to be owing at you earliest convenience.' should read your.

w00519772

MrrLucky wrote: »

Hi McKneff,

That is what I am worried about my credit score is extremely good with no CCJ's on my file.

I don't actually know if they have overpaid me that is the problem, I received part wages which I expected for outstanding holiday days that weren't taking and for the time that I had worked.

Only reason I have a problem with paying is that this is a very common problem with every employee that leaves the company they get letters demanding money and threatening solicitor letters - some cases the company has been squashed.

The case would be quashed if the ex employee can prove that they do not owe the money. If you cannot do this then it must be paid back.

Ask for a breakdown as others have suggested.

jobbingmusician

It seems fairly obvious to me that you WOULD owe them money, actually. (Of course this doesn't detract from their responsibility to explain it to you properly.)

You started work on 1st July. The payroll would have been run, and you were paid - presumably for the whole month - on 24th. But you didn't work a whole month, did you? You left on 27th, so have been paid for up to 4 extra days.

You would have accrued some holiday for the period you worked, and you are entitled to be paid for that. If you have taken no holiday, that probably comes to 2 or 2.5 days. So you owe them 2 or 1.5 days' pay.........

pimento

jobbingmusician wrote: »

It seems fairly obvious to me that you WOULD owe them money, actually. (Of course this doesn't detract from their responsibility to explain it to you properly.)

You started work on 1st July. The payroll would have been run, and you were paid - presumably for the whole month - on 24th. But you didn't work a whole month, did you? You left on 27th, so have been paid for up to 4 extra days.

You would have accrued some holiday for the period you worked, and you are entitled to be paid for that. If you have taken no holiday, that probably comes to 2 or 2.5 days. So you owe them 2 or 1.5 days' pay.........

Wrong! The OP worked there for a year and 26 days.

ampersand

MrrLucky - welcome to mse.
#
Please do NOT follow the well-meant advice, #2, #3, ,which is contradictory,

'overpayment' was not written by you, but inferred by that poster, who then suggests you mean 'unexplained.' The importance of correct reading is something emphasised in our Parking Ticket advice

Because of experience there, I ask you to check this is a genuine Solicitor's letter
There, McKneff #5 is correct.

Check here:
https://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.pageAuthority

You say this is a common tactic by your former employer.
Are you sure your letter is not actually a speculative invoice, i.e. a fake demand, with 'solicitor' talk masking unenforceable debt-collector nonsense?

Please use the straighforward request letter given by Thorsoak.

Do not use Recorded Delivery.
Any letter stamped 1st-class is deemed delivered within 48 hours.
ALWAYS obtain and retain a free Certificate of Posting from any PO.

People, firms, anyone, can refuse to sign letters sent RD.
The whole situ smells. Much advice here is supposition, from info. you have not yet given.

Any valid Court claim is far, far away. If I said I've sent you many requests for £76.29p, I suspect you'd ask me when, why, require justification :-)

Please take heart and stop over-thinking this until you have f.e.'s answer to your request.

Do not phone them OR so-called solicitor. Keep a paper trail.

jobbingmusician

pimento wrote: »

Wrong! The OP worked there for a year and 26 days.

So he did.

It does not in any way affect the assumption, and normal procedure, that he was (most likely) paid for the whole of July on 24th July, and thus owes them money! In fact, looking at my post, nothing I have written is actually incorrect, even though my years were wrong (and the OP may have accrued substantially more holiday, but also had more time in which to take any accrued holiday) ! :rotfl:

DandelionPatrol

ampersand wrote: »

MrrLucky - welcome to mse.
#
Please do NOT follow the well-meant advice, #2, #3, ,which is contradictory,

'overpayment' was not written by you, but inferred by that poster, who then suggests you mean 'unexplained.' The importance of correct reading is something emphasised in our Parking Ticket advice

Because of experience there, I ask you to check this is a genuine Solicitor's letter
There, McKneff #5 is correct.

Check here:
https://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.pageAuthority

You say this is a common tactic by your former employer.
Are you sure your letter is not actually a speculative invoice, i.e. a fake demand, with 'solicitor' talk masking unenforceable debt-collector nonsense?

Please use the straighforward request letter given by Thorsoak.

Do not use Recorded Delivery.
Any letter stamped 1st-class is deemed delivered within 48 hours.
ALWAYS obtain and retain a free Certificate of Posting from any PO.

People, firms, anyone, can refuse to sign letters sent RD.
The whole situ smells. Much advice here is supposition, from info. you have not yet given.

Any valid Court claim is far, far away. If I said I've sent you many requests for £76.29p, I suspect you'd ask me when, why, require justification :-)

Please take heart and stop over-thinking this until you have f.e.'s answer to your request.

Do not phone them OR so-called solicitor. Keep a paper trail.

You are right to say that the situation smells. Which is why I say not to use Thorsoak's letter as it stands, but write to the solicitor instead.

ampersand

.....but first determine that the signatory is a solicitor via the SRA link given.

Debt collectors try all sorts of tricks like this - well-known. Forner employer allegedly has form.
'Reason why I want to fight it is that the company does this with every employee that has left, from managers to lower ranked staff - notoriously bad for it.'
#
DP - I disagree with your final sentence.[ but :-)]
The firm was the employer. The firm claims £xx.xx. They must know what it is for.

op should not engage with a genuine solicitor -
[a] until receiving a full and satisfactory response from employer,
which requires specific rebuttal advice.

op - diarise how long you spend on this. Court assesses such time at £18 p.h.

DandelionPatrol

ampersand wrote: »

.....but first determine that the signatory is a solicitor via the SRA link given.

Debt collectors try all sorts of tricks like this - well-known. Forner employer allegedly has form.

It really does not matter if they are not a real solicitor, they are the ones threatening court, which the employer have not themselves done. The worst consequence of them not being a solicitor is the waste of the price of a stamp.

If they are a solicitor, the consequences of writing to the employer and not the solicitor are that the employer may not pass the letter on and a solicitor may proceed with legal action which they might not have done if they had received the letter.

[Where you would need to consider whether they are genuine solicitors is if you decide to phone them. A genuine solicitor can only mislead, a debt collector may well tell lies]