We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
P45 - wrong date, ex employer wont change
Comments
-
Blackmail isn't an appropriate employment system. If you have assets belonging to the employer, it is your duty to return those assets. Keeping hold of them doesn't make you appear wrong. It makes you wrong. Full stop.
Blackmail is making an unwarranted demand with menaces. Waiting until an employer resolves damages they have caused you before returning their property does not meet the standard for blackmail by any stretch of the imagination and is a pretty reasonable and prudent response given the circumstances the OP describes.
It is his property, and he has asked for its return. He would be perfectly entitled to call the police, and that would make you the "criminal".
It's fairly standard in civil disputes for assets to be retained until a debt/damages are resolved, and it's not a criminal act, we're not talking about dishonest appropriation with the intent to permanently deprive here which is the required element for theft as per the theft act 1968.0 -
Which is why I used inverted commas, and is entirely irrelevant anyway. He is entitled to call the police, and they will almost certainly tell the OP to return the equipment because it isn't theirs. And it also still doesn't make two wrongs a right.Blackmail is making an unwarranted demand with menaces. Waiting until an employer resolves damages they have caused you before returning their property does not meet the standard for blackmail by any stretch of the imagination and is a pretty reasonable and prudent response given the circumstances the OP describes.
It's fairly standard in civil disputes for assets to be retained until a debt/damages are resolved, and it's not a criminal act, we're not talking about dishonest appropriation with the intent to permanently deprive here which is the required element for theft as per the theft act 1968.0 -
I have to admit I am also confused by this. The OP was actually only out of work for three weeks, so how much rent could they have possibly owed to make losing their home a realistic issue? So the motivation for the "unfair" settlement appears to be limited.I'm afraid you're making it impossible for anyone to understand.
We need to simplify.
What has he paid you and when? What was paid in each pay period and how is it broken down?
Has he paid any of the ACAS agreed settlement? If so what.
Does he still owe you anything from the ACAS agreement? If so, what.
Does the payslip match what he has paid you? What is the difference?
OP - do you actually have a COT3 settlement agreement issued by ACAS? Can you please clarify what you mean by saying that you have a written confirmation that this is a redundancy payment?0 -
melanie262 wrote: »I currently still have company computer equipment worth roughly £500 he is pestering to collect, which I would like to use as a bargaining chip, but understand it's my legal duty to return.
Maybe he's thinking the same thing - "I'll agree to talk about that business with the P45 when she returns the computer?"0 -
Which is why I used inverted commas, and is entirely irrelevant anyway. He is entitled to call the police, and they will almost certainly tell the OP to return the equipment because it isn't theirs. And it also still doesn't make two wrongs a right.
It's not two wrongs though that's rather the point. Retaining assets in order to prevent yourself suffering a loss in the face of an uncooperative litigant is morally and legally above board.
The scenario presented here is not a case of extortion or theft, to call a reasonable demand to remedy the false information submitted to hmrc "blackmail" is simply absurd.0 -
OK. Let's assume that you are correct, which I don't in fact assume, but let's go with the flow....It's not two wrongs though that's rather the point. Retaining assets in order to prevent yourself suffering a loss in the face of an uncooperative litigant is morally and legally above board.
The scenario presented here is not a case of extortion or theft, to call a reasonable demand to remedy the false information submitted to hmrc "blackmail" is simply absurd.
On the basis of your argument, the employer is morally and legally right to refuse to deal with the P45 "in order to prevent themselves suffering a loss". Excellent. We've cleared that up and now it's fixed. Except for the fact that the OP STILL doesn't have their correct P45- which is not a criminal act. Whereas when the employer calls the police and tells them that the OP refuses to return company property, unless they do so, that certainly will be a crime.
I'd also point out that there is not, and never has been, a "litigant". Co-operative or otherwise. There was no case. And despite the allegations being flung around by the OP, there is no evidence of anything except for, possibly, a COT3 (because so far the OP has not answered any questions asked about this "agreement"). We are not, in fact, clear that any settlement agreement or COT3 was reached - in which case it is entirely possible, as I have already pointed out, the the P45 may be correct.
You are assuming a great many things not in evidence.0 -
OK. Let's assume that you are correct, which I don't in fact assume, but let's go with the flow....
On the basis of your argument, the employer is morally and legally right to refuse to deal with the P45 "in order to prevent themselves suffering a loss". Excellent. We've cleared that up and now it's fixed. Except for the fact that the OP STILL doesn't have their correct P45- which is not a criminal act. Whereas when the employer calls the police and tells them that the OP refuses to return company property, unless they do so, that certainly will be a crime.
No sangie, because the employer is the one legally at fault, they have caused damages to the OP and now it is their obligation to remedy that. This is really not a difficult concept to understand it is the basis of all civil disputes.
If the OP refuses to return the laptop it is not a crime, there is no dishonesty which is the mens rea for theft, or an intent to permanently deprive. It is a civil issue which the police will not involve themselves in.
I use the term "litigant" because the OP is talking about a legal issue which may potentially escalate, it is really does not matter either way whether a case has started or not, the legalities are the same.0 -
Failing to amend a P45 that might be wrong. Which law is that breaking?
Your are assuming a lot of things that aren't in evidence, and the OP doesn't seem to be interested in answering the questions asked about those things.0 -
I never suggested he's breaking the law, though for all I know failing to correct false information submitted to hmrc may well break a law, it doesn't have any bearing either way. Individuals are liable for damages that occur as a result of an innocent mistake that doesn't break any law.
I'm not assuming anything other than that the information the OP provided is correct, it could be a complete fabrication as could any other thread posted on this forum. But if I were to take that sort of cynical confrontational attitude there would really not be much point in participating in a forum.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards