Denied £299 cost of living payment due to Employers payroll mistake

mjm3346

They made a mistake that was corrected when it was brought to their attention - they quite correctly have not falsified the old payslips when correcting the mistake -  they have even offered you an extra £299 through the payroll  system.

Altior

It's almost irrevocable, the employer can't pay compensation without in increasing the income showing on your payslip in live time. They palpably can't pay cash or retrospectively change pay slips, this is a different fiscal year anyway. 

The solution would be from the government legislation perspective, to accommodate for employer payroll processing errors within the benefit system. I have no idea if that's a thing, unfortunately. 

Similar has happened under my watch in the past, where someone was overpaid and ended up paying too much of their student loan as it pushed them over the threshold. Alas, for the life of me I cannot recall how it was settled. 

Payroll processing errors can and do occur, that is life. I simply did not get paid one month due to a keying error from a payroll clerk on my bank account number on the bacs. 

It's not unreasonable at all to expect full redress, however keep in mind that this is far from straight forward to settle amicably from the employer perspective, whist staying fully within the boundaries of the law.

QrizB

Are we at the "stealing the employer's stationery and selling it on eBay" stage yet?

singhini

Could the OP go back to the employer and ask them to make a series of "Trivial Benefits" 

Employers can provide trivial benefits to employees without incurring tax liabilities.

To qualify as a trivial benefit, a number of conditions must be met which are that the:

Cost of providing the benefit does not exceed £50

Benefit is not cash or a cash voucher

Benefit is not provided under salary sacrifice arrangements or any other contractual obligation

Benefit is not provided in recognition of particular services performed by the employee in the course of the employment or in anticipation of such services

https://www.hawsons.co.uk/trivial-benefits/
Government link on the subject here
https://www.gov.uk/expenses-and-benefits-trivial-benefits



So an employer could stick £50 gift voucher (example: love to shop) in an envelope on six separate occasions and there is no reporting and no tax and no P11d reporting (for something like their Birthday, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Xmas, Boxing Day, New Years Day)

Or, could the employer look to reimburse the OP via expenses i.e. OP claims business mileage of 665 miles @ 45p = £299.25 (doesn't all have to be in one go, could do it over a longer period, say 3 months i.e. 222 miles per month)

You could even do a combination of both (OP's Birthday, Xmas, New year)   and 333 business miles

sheramber

How much extra UC did you get for the month that you were paid less?

Grumpy_chap

singhini said:

Benefit is not cash or a cash voucher

So an employer could stick £50 gift voucher (example: love to shop) in an envelope 

Well, that seems to be a contradiction.

singhini said:

could the employer look to reimburse the OP via expenses i.e. OP claims business mileage of 665 miles @ 45p = £299.25 (doesn't all have to be in one go, could do it over a longer period, say 3 months i.e. 222 miles per month)

I do not think it is wise for the OP to suggest that the employer commits fraud.

la531983

cathyr456 said:

@la531983 How would a claim for consequential loss hinder my claim- Genuine question? 

The issue you have is you are wanting to sue Entity A (employer) despite Entity B (the UK Government) owing you the money. An indirect (consequential) loss.

A real world example. An Easyjet flight sets off three hours late, causing me to miss a course ive paid £299 to attend. Easyjet wouldn't refund me.

singhini

Grumpy_chap said:

singhini said:

Benefit is not cash or a cash voucher

So an employer could stick £50 gift voucher (example: love to shop) in an envelope 

Well, that seems to be a contradiction.

singhini said:

could the employer look to reimburse the OP via expenses i.e. OP claims business mileage of 665 miles @ 45p = £299.25 (doesn't all have to be in one go, could do it over a longer period, say 3 months i.e. 222 miles per month)

I do not think it is wise for the OP to suggest that the employer commits fraud.

Its not a contradition, 

What is a cash voucher in HMRC?

Vouchers fall into two types: 'cash vouchers' and 'non-cash vouchers' with different treatment for each. A 'cash voucher' is one which can be exchanged or surrendered in return for money, e.g. a premium bond or postal order. The cash equivalent of a cash voucher is the amount of money for which it can be exchanged.
Love to shop vouchers cannot be exchanged for cash.
@Grumpy_chap

Your normally on the ball with things like this 


Agreed on point two

Grumpy_chap

singhini said:

Your normally on the ball with things like this 

Thanks, but I always remember, every day is a school day. 
One who has nothing to learn has nothing further to live for.

huckster

cathyr456 said:

huckster said:

It is not a direct loss. It is indirect.

The question is should the employers have been aware that payroll errors had consequences?

The Cost of Living payments were of wide public knowledge, due to Government's publicity of these. And the employers could reasonably have been aware that employees could be claiming benefit support such as Universal Credit. And that they therefore might be eligible for COL.

It is possible to claim for consequential losses, but whether a Judge hearing such a case would decide in the OP's favour is uncertain.  A very good case would have to be made.  

What would you suggest would make a good claim. Ive got all the evidence.....;)

It appears that only repeated payroll errors which have caused consequential losses have been successful in Court. As yours relates to a one off situation, it would be a gamble taking this to Court. 

It is probably too indirect and a Judge may not accept that the employer should have forseen that the payroll error would have caused this loss