Company refuses to reimburse job interview expenses

iammumtoone

Do you have it in writing (from recruiter or company) that they will pay this sum?

If so then it may be worth a Letter before action, if they are a big company they may decide to pay (whatever they think they should or not) to avoid the hassle/cost of a court appearance.

If you do decide to go ahead with small claims as others have said you need to make you case clearer, then the judge can decide if the company has a valid point not to pay as you didn't need all of the travel.

Another point to consider is there is any possibly of your name getting known in the industry that you are a person who takes a company to court.

Manxman_in_exile

steampowered wrote: »

The Op doesn't need this. A recruitment agent would typically be acting as Company X's agent - and Company X would be bound to the agreement.

If Company X does not approve of the arrangements made, it is for Company X to take that up with the recruiter.
.

Thanks.


Ok. I've been retired for several years now and had always applied for my own jobs without needing a recruiter. I think I misunderstood the OP's reference to "my recruiter" as somebody acting for him, rather than "the recruiter acting on behalf of company x" which would have been clearer for less well informed posters like me.


I fully appreciate the point you make, but the OP does not help by being both vague and imprecise. For example, when asked how company x learned about the other interviews the OP has said both that (1) the recruiter asked the OP, the OP told the recruiter, and the recruiter "obviously" told company x, and also that (2) the OP thinks he may have told company x himself(!).


If the recruiter was company x's agent then I'm sure your right, but the OP's account of what happened seems to me to be both inconsistent and unclear.

stuartJo1989

yours3lf wrote: »

Because Company X already covered my flight to the UK there was no need for another round of flights.

Yes but normally a company would only pay for your travel arrangements if they wanted your services! Two things throw me:

1. Company X was not concerned about getting you home safely after the interview (return flights) and the other two companies who paid for your return flights were seemingly not concerned with GETTING YOU INTO THE COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE (inbound flights).

2. Two companies, presumably competitors for your services, have worked together to pay your return flights! Seems a bit odd that they would do that if they were competing for you...

Those sort of questions may spring up if you do end up in court.

Please don't make any threats, there's no need. I mean it's literally a chair warming job as I'm a programmer. You sit on a chair all day and warm it, plus do some coding while you are there.

You didn't mean that because that wasn't the context, but fair play to you for putting out a statement which tries to limit any flak!

It wasn't a threat per se though, it was more a bit of advice given that you can usually trace people online and your future employer could well be on this forum... You never know.

You don't have to do that, just learn programming (takes about 2-3 years) and you have a chair warming job for yourself.

My brother does programming, and I know someone who has just been hired by a huge gaming company down south. They weren't reimbursed for flights and didn't end up invoicing about 3+ companies for travel costs! Mind you, I think they were just happy to do less work for more money (ie a "chair-warming job") in a decent company!

I, on the other hand, do not like programming and have taken a different career direction. I am also not motivated by having more money or a cushier job, so will decline your advice on what I should do in the next 2-3 years

Anyways, I wish you all the best with your situation. Try taking them to small claims if you have sufficient evidence.

lincroft1710

steampowered wrote: »

The next stage is a 'letter before action' to Company X I would have thought.

iammumtoone wrote: »

If so then it may be worth a Letter before action,

OP has never directly asked Company X for money, so surely he should do that before an LBA. The interview took place a year ago.

stuartJo1989 wrote: »

1. Company X was not concerned about getting you home safely after the interview (return flights)

OP claims that Company X agreed to reimburse him £400 for the same day return ticket he purchased.

Despite the recruiter's claims is there actual evidence he ever actually approached Company X about reimbursement, and if they replied to the recruiter or there were conditions about the reimbursement the recruiter has failed to convey to the OP

lincroft1710

I'm still of the opinion that if the OP takes this to court that when the facts are put before the court

1. OP attended two other interviews with companies who reimbursed his return flights and overnight accommodation and a further interview with the company who eventually employed him and reimbursed zilch.

2. Company X were unaware of his intention of attending other interviews when they (allegedly) agreed to reimburse his return ticket.

3. OP did not use return part of ticket he is claiming reimbursement for

the court may not look so favourably on his claim.

If I was the judge and feeling generous I would be inclined to award 25% of the single fare. Not feeling generous I would say that the OP misled Company X into believing they would be paying for a flight just for their interview and award nothing.

Fortunately for the OP I'm not a SCC judge!

HHarry

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Not feeling generous I would say that the OP misled Company X into believing they would be paying for a flight just for their interview and award nothing.

Really? At the point Company X asked for the meeting, agreed to pay the flight costs, and the tickets were booked the other interviews hadn't been arranged. There was no misleading going on.

I agree the subsequent interviews cloud the issue slightly, that more thought could have been given as to who was going to pay for what, and that Company X probably shouldn't have to pay the full £400, but no-one has been mislead - particularly as Company X have been informed of the other interviews.

jobbingmusician

Sorry, but (from a totally non-expert POV) I think you are all barking up the wrong tree!

My understanding is that the recruiter introduced the OP to all 3 companies, and the recruiter agreed with the companies that expenses would be reimbursed.

Furthermore, the recruiter has put it in writing to the OP that these expenses will be paid.

IMO the OP is chasing the wrong person. Okay OP, you may have had success with 2/3 of the companies by going to them direct, but the person who promised the expenses was the agent, and that is the person who should be reclaiming these expenses and paying you.

If I have understood this correctly (of course, it is possible/likely that I have not, and that's why I'm seeing it differently from the rest of you) I would send a LBA to the agent, pointing out to them that they had stated that the companies would pay your expenses, and so it is up to them to reclaim this balance or pay you themself. Give them a timescale, following which you will pursue through MCOL.

It doesn't then matter if things are double funded or what the arrangements were. If the OP has an email from the agent promising that company X would refund him £400, then the agent should ensure that this money is paid.

lincroft1710

HHarry wrote: »

Really? At the point Company X asked for the meeting, agreed to pay the flight costs, and the tickets were booked the other interviews hadn't been arranged. There was no misleading going on.

I agree the subsequent interviews cloud the issue slightly, that more thought could have been given as to who was going to pay for what, and that Company X probably shouldn't have to pay the full £400, but no-one has been mislead - particularly as Company X have been informed of the other interviews.

The OP didn't inform Company X about the other interviews, the recruiter did.

If I owned Company X and a candidate comes for interview whom I've agreed to reimburse £400 for a return flight thinking it was just for this interview and I then find out he's attending 2 or 3 further interviews and will not be using the return part of the ticket, I would not be amused!

Manxman_in_exile

lincroft1710 wrote: »

The OP didn't inform Company X about the other interviews, the recruiter did.

If I owned Company X and a candidate comes for interview whom I've agreed to reimburse £400 for a return flight thinking it was just for this interview and I then find out he's attending 2 or 3 further interviews and will not be using the return part of the ticket, I would not be amused!

Are you sure, because the OP isn't? The Op originally said that the recruiter asked about other interviews and that the recruiter "obviously" told company x. But then in a later post the Op says that they "think" they may have told company x themselves.


The OP's narrative is confused, contradictory and lacks detail. (I would expect a "programmer" to be more competent in these areas. If they can't explain this situation fully and satisfactorily, what are their programming skills like?)


Apart from that, I agree with you. I wouldn't be amused either.


The OP needs a fully explained and detailed narrative of what was "agreed" with the recruiter, x, y and z, and what evidence they have that that was agreed.

lincroft1710

jobbingmusician wrote: »

Sorry, but (from a totally non-expert POV) I think you are all barking up the wrong tree!

My understanding is that the recruiter introduced the OP to all 3 companies, and the recruiter agreed with the companies that expenses would be reimbursed.

Furthermore, the recruiter has put it in writing to the OP that these expenses will be paid.

IMO the OP is chasing the wrong person.

Interesting POV.

But it would appear the OP does not have an agreement with the recruiter, that the recruiter would reimburse him.

Is the recruiter just acting as a "messenger", relaying what Company X have allegedly agreed to do? Or is the recruiter personally responsible for ensuring what is promised by a 3rd party is delivered and if not must make good himself?