Pay grade - can raises be implied

Hey everyone

I have a query that is somewhat specific regarding pay grades and the actions of my employer over the past 7.5 years and whether they imply terms.

A bit of background:

I have worked in the same accountancy practice for 7.5 years, starting with no experience or qualifications back in 2012.

As such I started out on quite a low salary and proceeded to work my way up.

My pay was always determined by two things; number of years experience and number of ACCA exams I passed on the way to becoming a qualified accountant. see table below for my current pay scales taken straight from the letter from my employer:

ACCA exams passed; Experience; Salary
None; Up to 1 year; 21,000
Applied knowledge (three exams); 1 year +; 24,500
Applied skill (first three exams); 2 years +; 28,500
Applied skill (next three exams); 3 years +; 33,000
Strategic professional (four exams); 4 year +; 38,000

There is also the following wording under this table: "For each salary level it will be a requirement to meet both the exam and experience criteria. There would always be discretion for Employer Name to change or not apply these if for example you are performing exceptionally well, or having difficulties"

I would have a pay review after getting the exam results and if I had met the above requirements I would receive the pay rise from the next month.

There was also a discretionary option to receive a raise to half way through the band if I was over half way in exams and expereince required for that band.

Up until now I have always had the pay rises for both completed bands and the half complete bands which leads me to believe I am performing well.

After a couple of years, when I had passed six exams I was at the third pay level but due to personal reasons, I decided to stop studying for the exams temporarily. During this time, I (obviously) didn't receive any pay rises because I was not meeting the requirement of exams passed even though I had long surpassed the experience level.

This break ended up lasting two years so for that time I was at the same level pay wise. I then restarted my studies and started passing more exams. The pay rises then also came in again when I passed the relevant exams. I am now studying towards the final exam to become qualified, so from the above information, you would think that once I pass that, I would get to the final pay rate.

That is where my question comes in.

I had a review meeting after passing the third of four strategic professional exams, but nothing was mentioned about pay even though my employer would always bring this up themselves usually. So I asked about it, seeing as I was over half way between 33k and 38k in terms of exams.

The answer I was given was that the pay grades above are entirely discretionary and they didn't have to honour them. They said they thought what my pay was at currently was sufficient.

But it didn't end there, they then went on to say that actually, the £38k final salary level wasn't even applicable to my role and that it was actually for someone who took a manager level role. If I was to stay in my current role and qualify, I would only recieve a pay rise to £34.5k.

So I am wondering if they can just do that without consequence, after effectively lying to me for the past seven years about what pay I would receive when I qualified. My pay has always rigidly followed these scales both positively, when passing exams, and negatively, when I wasn't studying.

I know that contractual terms can be implied based on past actions, so would the fact that they have always followed these scales in the past, for better or for worse, imply that they should follow them now?

I'm mainly asking so that if I were to speak to my employer, I have a bit more knowledge about the area. I'm not looking to sue them for breach of contract or anything.