Employer has withheld all my wages!

HurdyGurdy

I don't think the OP cited the second hand value on Ebay as a case for the employer sourcing one there. I think that was mentioned to show that the OP feels that too much money has been stopped from their wages to cover the cost of the first tablet, which is now second hand.

steampowered

It sounds like they are saying they are missing an old, broken tablet from some time ago? If so, they should have told you it was missing at the time. I don't think the employer can turn round and start demanding evidence at the time you leave the employer, particularly as it sounds like the employer did not put in place any system for recording the return.

You say the reference to deductions is buried in the handbook. The Employment Rights Act is very specific that deductions from wages can only be made if there is a provision in your contract authorising that or you have agreed to the deduction in signed writing, putting it in the handbook won't usually be enough.

It doesn't sound to me like the employer can justify withholding wages in a case like this. I would be asking for them to pay the outstanding wages and issuing a small court claim through moneyclaimonline if the outstanding amount is not paid.

Leo2020

sangie595 wrote: »

This is certainly worth a try, but even so, what doesn't make sense to you or your husband doesn't make a case. Employers (and, in my experience, IT departments) can be lacksadaisical. Unfortunately, in this case, it is the OP who doesn't have the evidence. The employer doesn't need to "get the last tablet back" before issuing a new one - resulting in disruption which would be inconvenient for many employers - because if things are not returned, they have that clause in their contract to recover the cost. You could equally argue that it is remiss of the OP to post something back and then lose / dispose of the receipt for postage before confirming it has been received.

BTW - our IT department always send out new equipment before getting the old one back. That is not "slack". We have a service which is routinely delivered remotely and from many different locations; where people need access to files, servers and communications at the drop of a hat; and where being connected is now business critical. Where an item of equipment fails to function, it would be service suicide to wait two, three or more days before getting someone back on line with a tablet. It would therefore be our practice to send out a replacement immediately and ask the employee to return the old one - and as employees we would expect to keep the receipt for that return until we knew it had arrived! We have exactly the same clause in our contracts - what we don't return, we pay for. So we are quite sure that things are returned or that we have proof they have been.

I appreciate that IT will sometimes send equipment out before confirming a fault. But it is very odd that the IT department did not chase the tablet's return until the OP left. The fault lies with the IT department as well, I doubt they don't have a system in place for returns. They might have carried on working for them for another 10 years, could you imagine being chased ten years later?

Appreciate the OP needs to provide proof but this is badly handle IT department - they should know to chase returned items before someone leaves the company. Often broken IT equipment can be fixed or salvaged for parts - I'm suprised they did not chase after a few weeks. All equipment has to accounted for in most places including faulty unsalvagble items - it has to be logged as such and that is to be sent back to the manufacturer, sent for recyling, etc.

sangie595

Leo2020 wrote: »

I appreciate that IT will sometimes send equipment out before confirming a fault. But it is very odd that the IT department did not chase the tablet's return until the OP left. The fault lies with the IT department as well, I doubt they don't have a system in place for returns. They might have carried on working for them for another 10 years, could you imagine being chased ten years later?

Appreciate the OP needs to provide proof but this is badly handle IT department - they should know to chase returned items before someone leaves the company. Often broken IT equipment can be fixed or salvaged for parts - I'm suprised they did not chase after a few weeks. All equipment has to accounted for in most places including faulty unsalvagble items - it has to be logged as such and that is to be sent back to the manufacturer, sent for recyling, etc.

I don't disagree. But the fact is that none of that invalidates a contractual agreement. If you know that you will be charged for missing equipment, then the onus is on you to ensure its whereabouts and get confirmation of return. And if you don't know, you should have read your contract.

The OP doesn't want to know whether their former employers IT department is well run. They want to know whether what the employer is doing is legal (answer - yes) and whether they can sue for damages and stress (answer - no).

Leo2020

sangie595 wrote: »

I don't disagree. But the fact is that none of that invalidates a contractual agreement. If you know that you will be charged for missing equipment, then the onus is on you to ensure its whereabouts and get confirmation of return. And if you don't know, you should have read your contract.

The OP doesn't want to know whether their former employers IT department is well run. They want to know whether what the employer is doing is legal (answer - yes) and whether they can sue for damages and stress (answer - no).

I was making the suggestion as to maybe they could ask their employer to give their IT department a nudge. That may have nothing to do with legal rights, it is worth a shot. Sometimes it is worth thinking about things from a non-legal point of view. Also the Op said that the second tablet was returned in a pre-paid envelope. Now pre-paid implies the employer paid. Does this mean they pre-paid the first time? If so the IT department are likley to be the ones who sent the pre-paid envelope and as so they should have the tracking details?

Edit. The Op uses the word assigned but I am wondering if this means pre-paid?

steampowered

I disagree with the assertion that what the employer is doing is legal. In a legal dispute the judge would decide whether 'on a balance of probabilities' the op returned the tablet. The Op is not required to provide proof of delivery unless the employer has a system which requires that.

If the employer doesn't have a proper returns system in place I don't think a judge would sympathise with them when something gets lost. Especially as it sounds like the tablet should have been returned a long time ago and the fact that it was recorded as missing was not mentioned to the employee until a deduction was made in his final payslip.

Op how long ago did you return the broken tablet?

Anyway, the thing to do now is probably to challenge the employer on this and insist you returned the tablet. If that doesn't work, you can consider issuing a small claim for the £400. You can't claim for stress.

TBagpuss

paddyrg wrote: »

I'd stick by your argument of why would you want to keep a broken tablet, and if course you sent it back, hence them sending a replacement. It's the most compelling.

I agree. I would alos point out that on thier version of events they have been missing the tablet for x months, c;learly had that nben the case it would have been reaspnable for them to have flagged it up at an earlier stage, most obviusly at the point when you were issued with the replacement.

I think that it is worth your while to state, in writing, that the original tablet was reported as faulty and returned and that as you were (a) issued with a replacements and (b) at no time in the past x months given any indication that they had not received the original and by their delay have put you in a position whewe you can no longer provide proof, as neither at the time you returned the faulty tablet nora at any time after that did they take any reasonablesteps to trace it or to advise you that thwere was outstanding paperwork requiring completion, that you do not accept that the dedcction is reasonable and expect to recieve the full outstnding amount by return.

If they refuce then you could seek to recover the outstnading money but only you can decide whether it is worth the hassle.

Undervalued

steampowered wrote: »

I disagree with the assertion that what the employer is doing is legal. In a legal dispute the judge would decide whether 'on a balance of probabilities' the op returned the tablet. The Op is not required to provide proof of delivery unless the employer has a system which requires that.

If the employer doesn't have a proper returns system in place I don't think a judge would sympathise with them when something gets lost. Especially as it sounds like the tablet should have been returned a long time ago and the fact that it was recorded as missing was not mentioned to the employee until a deduction was made in his final payslip.

Op how long ago did you return the broken tablet?

Anyway, the thing to do now is probably to challenge the employer on this and insist you returned the tablet. If that doesn't work, you can consider issuing a small claim for the £400. You can't claim for stress.

In these particular circumstances it is almost irrelevant whether the deduction was legal or not. It has happened!

So, if the OP feels the deduction is wrong and can't get the employer to agree they will have to sue to get the money back.

Had the employer not deducted the money, but still felt it was owed and was unable to get the OP to agree, then the employer would have had to sue.

Either way it would have ended up in court.