Advice on training repayments after leaving

hellolookingforadvice

Hello kind people,

I have left an organisation recently and have been asked to agree repayment terms for training I undertook within a certain time period.

The employment contract that I signed states "If your employment is subsequently terminated for any reason within six months of the date on which you attended the course, you agree to reimburse the company for the expense of that course in so far as it was incurred on your behalf. The company has the right to deduct such sums from your pay or other amount due to you."

Is this clause clear enough for an employer to enforce repayments for the training after an employee has left the organisation? I have read that in addition to clauses like this, an agreement need must contain certain information about the level of cost, the terms of repayment and must stipulate a time period over which these cost reduce.

I have not signed anything else and the training equates to more that my monthly income. I am looking for advice on this as this was all done fairly late and not very clear. Can this organisation enforce training repayments after one has left?

Thanks.

TELLIT01

The first question is was the training organised at your request? That seems to be the basis of them having an entitlement to request repayment. If you didn't request the training it would seem that you have no obligation to repay. If you did request the training, and you signed the contract before the training took place I would have thought that the contract was clear enough to enforce.
This is just my opinion, I'm not an employment lawyer.

Manxman_in_exile

TELLIT01 wrote: »

The first question is was the training organised at your request? That seems to be the basis of them having an entitlement to request repayment. If you didn't request the training it would seem that you have no obligation to repay. If you did request the training, and you signed the contract before the training took place I would have thought that the contract was clear enough to enforce.
This is just my opinion, I'm not an employment lawyer.

I'm not sure about that(?). The contract says "incurred on your behalf", not "incurred at your request". I interpret on your behalf as simply meaning the employee is the person receiving the training - nothing more.


I would have thought the contract term could have been a bit more explicit, but I think it's meaning is sufficiently clear.

matttye

Looks clear enough to me.

If you fight against this, you may end up having to pay your employers court costs as well as the cost of the training when they sue you and you'll have a CCJ on your record as well.

I say pay it.

ohreally

If there is a contractual authorisation, is it set out in terms of diminishing returns or are they seeking to recover their outlay in its entirety?

jobbingmusician

I say 'depends on the training'. If it's an accredited course with an external provider, they are bang to rights. If the clause relates to internal training, or worse still, to some unspecified induction training, than I would see an employment lawyer ASAP. I agree with a previous poster in finding the absence of an agreement saying what has been provided and what it cost (in ADVANCE of any possible resignation, and in advance of taking said training) rather suspicious.

TELLIT01

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I'm not sure about that(?). The contract says "incurred on your behalf", not "incurred at your request". I interpret on your behalf as simply meaning the employee is the person receiving the training - nothing more.


I would have thought the contract term could have been a bit more explicit, but I think it's meaning is sufficiently clear.

The OP has gone back in an edited his original post after I replied to it. In the OP he stated that the contract said "training organised at your request".
It really ***** me off when people edit posts leaving those who reply looking stupid. I'm not getting involved with this guy any more.

Manxman_in_exile

TELLIT01 wrote: »

The OP has gone back in an edited his original post after I replied to it. In the OP he stated that the contract said "training organised at your request".
It really ***** me off when people edit posts leaving those who reply looking stupid. I'm not getting involved with this guy any more.

Apologies. I didn't notice it had been edited 10 hours later(!).


I agree - it's very annoying...

Energize

matttye wrote: »

Looks clear enough to me.

If you fight against this, you may end up having to pay your employers court costs as well as the cost of the training when they sue you and you'll have a CCJ on your record as well.

I say pay it.

Just a minor point, but if you pay the judgement straight away you won't have a CCJ on your record.

Lungboy

jobbingmusician wrote: »

I agree with a previous poster in finding the absence of an agreement saying what has been provided and what it cost (in ADVANCE of any possible resignation, and in advance of taking said training) rather suspicious.

I'd guess that the statement covering the repayment of training costs is in the OP 's main contract of employment, so there's no way that it would be able to state what training might be provided in the future or how much it would cost. That's what I have in my initial contract, and I don't sign any further contracts for subsequent training.