Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances
A solicitor called "Spratt Endicott" has issued a claim against me on behalf of my former employer, Royal Mail PLC, in respect of an alleged overpayment of allowances in mid-2005.
Following a bogus conduct case in May 2005 I was moved to a different duty within the same delivery office. Some 2 months later the HR department reduced my allowances.
I complained; when they refused to reinstate the allowances I told them to resolve the matter by discussion with my union. They failed to do this. This cycle was repeated.
Royal Mail claim that I was overpaid for the two months. My view is that I was entitled to the existing level of allowances until my employment with Royal Mail ended on 31st January 2006 due to no financial penalty being awarded or allowed in conjunction with a "Serious Warning".
The money was received in good faith and I had no reason to doubt the matter would be favourably resolved through the usual IR procedures.
Whenever Royal Mail has contacted me since I have referred them back to the union. When Spratt Endicott contacted me prior to issuing their claim I referred them back to Royal Mail for correct resolution of an industrial relations matter through discussion with the communication workers union.
The relevant Conduct Code is HERE and discipline penalties are described about halfway through the document at section 14.
The conduct penalty awarded was "A Serious Warning to stay on record for a period of two years with the associated penalty of a transfer to delivery duties".
I rely on the fact that (in contrast to some of the penalties available for a "Major Offence") the description of "Serious Warning" accompanied by "Disciplinary transfer to another job within the manager's area of authority" includes neither the possibility of loss of earnings and pension entitlement nor the duty to take full account of personal hardship before its imposition.
Royal Mail's claim is for £351.78 plus interest, court fees and solicitor's costs - a total claim of £468.84. My counterclaim would be for £1204.84 plus the relevant interest, fees and costs.
I would also point out that since being harassed out of Royal Mail I have been in lower paid employment and could not afford to give them £468.84.
Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances
The defence and counterclaim has to be in by next Tuesday (20th Feb 2007).
This is my draft Defence:-
The Claimant alleges there was an overpayment of monies to the Defendant. The Defendant avers that there was actually an underpayment.
All monies the Claimant paid to the Defendant were received in good faith, with every expectation the dispute would be resolved through the usual Industrial Relations procedures and the underpayment rectified.
In May 2005 the Claimant awarded the Defendant a penalty under the Royal Mail Conduct Code of "A Serious Warning to stay on record for a period of two years with the associated penalty of a transfer to delivery duties". The description of that penalty does not provide for "loss of earnings and pension entitlement", which is reserved to penalties available with the award of a "Major Offence".
In July 2005 the Claimant reduced the weekly allowances paid to the Defendant and alleged there had been an overpayment for eight weeks. The Defendant has always refuted this allegation and made an initial, unsuccessful challenge via his line manager. Subsequently the Defendant has referred all approaches regarding the matter to the Communication Workers Union for resolution by discussion/negotiation.
The Defendant avers that the payment of reduced allowances amounted to a deduction from the Defendant's wages, contrary to Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
This deduction was ongoing from 25th July 2005 until the Defendant was forced to leave the Claimant's employ on 31st January 2006, a period of 27 weeks and two days.
____
And "reasons for making the counterclaim":
Having repeatedly ignored the Defendant's requests to settle an industrial relations matter by discussion/negotiation with the recognised trade union, the Claimant has chosen to pursue through the Courts a debt that is not owed.
This has left the Defendant with few options other than to claim through the Courts the monies owed by the Claimant.
____
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
At moment I am photocopying evidence to accompany form EX160 as I cannot afford the counterclaim fee.
Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances
The defence and counterclaim was delivered to the court yesterday by recorded delivery, along with my application for remission of court fees.
Don't know whether the court will grant the remission of fees but today I received the Allocation Questionnaire, which must be returned to my local county court by 8th March.
Looking around to see which information on the forum is relevant to my case.
Will be ticking the box requesting a one month stay to attempt settlement because
(1) if a stay were ordered, it would give me breathing space.
(2) by applying for remission of court fees, I have shown (or will have shown it if/when I tell them) that I don't have any money to give them anytime soon in the event they won.
(3) I have "upped the ante" for them by counterclaiming. Presumably they will want to defend the counterclaim, so I shall have to wait and see their defence - to be simple it will have to be very sneaky.
We have received our client's further instructions in the above
matter.
Whilst our client has no doubt that its claim will succeed at trial,
it is mindful of the commercial realities of pursuing the matter and in
particular the costs that have already been incurred and will continue
to accrue should the matter proceed any further. In view of the size
of the claim, the Court will allocate the matter to the "Small Claims
track" for hearing which will mean that neither party is likely to
recover its costs.
In the circumstances, our client is prepared to take a pragmatic view
in an attempt to resolve this dispute and is agreeable to settlement on a
"drop hands" basis, whereby each party agrees to discontinue its
respective claim and to bear its own costs.
Please confirm by return whether you are agreeable to settlement on
the above basis.
===8<===========End of original message text===========
In the first instance, I shall reply that I need to consider my
position.
Firstly, my acceptance would depend on the conditions attached.
Secondly, to "split the difference" is also a pragmatic approach -
and their claim is under £500 whereas my counterclaim is nearly
£1300...
Perhaps try to negotiate, in view of the distress they have caused
me?
I note your client's opening position in this negotiation.
Whilst I am confident of success at trial, I recognise that your
client's costs would likely dwarf my claim. In contrast, my own
costs are limited to stationery, postage, phonecalls and
electricity - I have not charged for my time and my present
parlous financial situation forced me to submit a form EX160
"application for a fee exemption or remission" in lieu of the £120
counterclaim fee.
In the circumstances, your client's interests would be better
served by settling for the full amount of my claim than by
proceeding to Court. Therefore, my opening position is that your
client pays me the full amount of my claim, in addition to each
party agreeing to discontinue its respective claim and to bear its
own costs. You will note I have indicated on form N150 "allocation
questionnaire" my wish for a one-month stay to attempt to settle
the claim.
Halifax (current accounts, credit card, old mortgage, secured loan) thread here
Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances
mfpa
I think this probably revolves around the allowances and would depend on what they were for, maybe extra for performing specific additional duties and not part of salary, so move to delivery duties meant you were no longer doing the additional duties although basic salary remains the same and so could be (loosely) viewed as no financial penalty. I realise in actuality it means lower take home.
I suspect they could find some arguments if they have the will to do so. I would probably take the cop out approach and agree to put it to bed. However it is your choice and you know better than anyone else the specifics of your situation.
Good Luck with whichever approach you take. There is an argument that if you don't ask you don't get.
Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances
Originally Posted by half ax I
I think this probably revolves around the allowances and would depend on what they were for, maybe extra for performing specific additional duties and not part of salary, so move to delivery duties meant you were no longer doing the additional duties although basic salary remains the same and so could be (loosely) viewed as no financial penalty. I realise in actuality it means lower take home.
The situation is pretty complicated.
As a former union rep, I knew that national agreements covering "situations where an individual is displaced and loses a level of pay as a consequence of business driven change" protected various chunks of my allowances for specified periods. (But only because the bogus conduct case resulted in a penalty that did not include loss of earnings and pension entitlement.)
Without the protection afforded by these agreements it would be as you suggest.
Originally Posted by half ax I
I suspect they could find some arguments if they have the will to do so.
Indeed but they don't normally have to bother.
Originally Posted by half ax I
I would probably take the cop out approach and agree to put it to bed. However it is your choice and you know better than anyone else the specifics of your situation.
Good Luck with whichever approach you take. There is an argument that if you don't ask you don't get.
Tempted to tread with care as they can be vindictive beggars. OTOH, I do not want to settle too cheaply...
Halifax (current accounts, credit card, old mortgage, secured loan) thread here
We have received our client's further instructions in the above
matter.
Whilst our client has no doubt that its claim will succeed at trial,
it is mindful of the commercial realities of pursuing the matter and in
particular the costs that have already been incurred and will continue
to accrue should the matter proceed any further. In view of the size
of the claim, the Court will allocate the matter to the "Small Claims
track" for hearing which will mean that neither party is likely to
recover its costs.
In the circumstances, our client is prepared to take a pragmatic view
in an attempt to resolve this dispute and is agreeable to settlement on a
"drop hands" basis, whereby each party agrees to discontinue its
respective claim and to bear its own costs.
Please confirm by return whether you are agreeable to settlement on
the above basis.
===8<===========End of original message text===========
In the first instance, I shall reply that I need to consider my
position.
I note your client's opening position in this negotiation.
Whilst I am just as confident as your client claims to be of
success at trial, I embrace the opportunity for a swift conclusion
to this unnecessary dispute.
We both recognise that your client's costs would likely be far in
excess of the value of my claim. Taking a pragmatic view, your
client's financial interests are better served by paying my claim
than by proceeding to Court.
Therefore, my opening offer is a settlement whereby your client
pays me the full amount of my claim without admitting liability,
in addition to each party agreeing to discontinue its respective
claim and to bear its own costs.
Please confirm your client's acceptance or communicate their new
negotiating position in the early part of next week.
Halifax (current accounts, credit card, old mortgage, secured loan) thread here
Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances
Originally Posted by mfpa
Presumably they will want to defend the counterclaim, so I shall have to wait and see their defence - to be simple it will have to be very sneaky.
I now have their defence to the counterclaim:-
The Claimant denies that there has been an underpayment of monies to the Defendant and puts the Defendant to Strict proof of the alleged underpayment.
They have also sent me their allocation questionnaire. I am surprised that they estimate three hours for a hearing, as I think one hour is realistic. They list as their witness the manager responsible for harassing me out of the company. Odd, I would have expected somebody from Human Resources to talk about allowances and national agreements...
Halifax (current accounts, credit card, old mortgage, secured loan) thread here
Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances
keep us updated, let us know how it goes, definately one of the more unusual threads on this forum, but great to read, i only wish i knew how to help you!
With reference to your email dated 8.3.07 we confirm that the terms of
settlement contained therein are not acceptable and we are instructed
to
progress the matter to trial.
===8<===========End of original message text==============
I think the plan should now be to wait about a week (?) before replying. I'm told they expect me to now beg for the "drop hands" settlement they offered previously...
Also wondering about the merit of replying that I have received their email and I note their client's feigned amnesia of the commercial realities of pursuing the matter.
Halifax (current accounts, credit card, old mortgage, secured loan) thread here
Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances
of allowances in mid-2005.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by kennyparkroad
I do not know what I am on about - So take my advice with a truck full of salt...