Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. Thanks for your advice - Damien Green has been emailed and I am awaiting his response in full, also the Police and Crime commissioner has been written to and i've asked him for his thoughts on this matter, especially at a time he spent a reported £160,000 of the forces budget pursuing his own agenda of ousting the current chief constable Neil Rhodes, again no response as yet. The Nettleham MP Edward Leigh has also been emailed and informed of events. Its amazing what lengths Senior Police officers go to in order to limit any damage their force could be exposed to in public - the press release to the BBC (as linked above) is interpreted that the force would be fully resolving these issues yet away from the pubic scrutiny of the article the reality is that the force are applying the Limitation Act 1980 to make reduced payments to staff which is not mentioned. I've asked Mr Smy the deputy chief constable on two separate occasions why he has omitted information from the press releases back in October and he has ignored both questions put to him. I think again the 2006 date quoted was the start of the limitation period that they were paying staff from - if you have a look at the audit Lincolnshire report it states that the errors stemmed from 2003. Here's the audit report which is available to the public, its strange however that Lincolnshire Police would go on record and state 2006 when the facts (which are publicly available) suggest otherwise. http://www.lincolnshire-pcc.gov.uk/Document-Library/Item-9---Appendix---Lincs-Police-Audit-Lincolnshire-Final-Report.pdf Can you see a pattern here? When the heat is on "no comment" seems to be the best policy and this is at a time police accountability is at the lowest levels ever recorded. Unfortunately the police service is accountable to the tax payer and i'm sure most would like to know what has happened to the misappropriated tax payers money.
  2. I have got the local MP involved and its the king of them all the Police who are supposedly a whiter than white organisation!! Makes good reading hence the national press are interested.
  3. The 'mistake' from looking at the external auditors report dates back to 2003. I can prove minimal due diligence under S.32 as I checked my monthly pay slip and of course 250 other members off staff not noticing this error tells its own story. The reason this particular organisation are so stubborn on not paying outside the limitation period is because they have only set aside £1.1m from their budget to offset this problem. If they paid everyone in full it would take approximately £3m - £4m to settle in full. They have gone on record to state in writing that this issue could be 'considered' a breach of contract, but they are scared if someone wins a court case it could set a legal precedent for them to pay out all staff members in full. Unfortunately as I'm a former staff member the UNISON have confirmed that they cannot represent matters of a historical nature so only serving staff members who pay into the scheme can get representation.
  4. Hi Brigadier2JCS, thanks for your advice - I must add that the mistake was only discovered in October 2013 and some 250 staff members are affected who also didn't realise the shortfalls in their salaries, this just demonstrates the complexity of the mistake. The organisation have now flatly refused to pay anything which falls outside the Limitation Act 1980 as it is statue barred - Section 32 subsection c provides an adequate argument against this. As the organisation owe outstanding monies to us all which fall outside the limitation act I know view this as a debt and wanted to treat it as such, i'm not bothered about how much it costs me personally to join the agencies its about the moral of the issues now and I want to set a precedent on many front in relation to these matters. Thanks again for your advice - I will keep you all updated on this story. The national tabloids are interested in this story so will post the links when the story goes live.
  5. Evening All - I'm just after a someone who is in the know about company finance issues and placing default notices on company credit file if possible? To give you a very brief background into my case I was employed by a government organisation and in October 2003 it was revealed that they had made errors with many employees salaries and subsequent pension contributions dating back to 2003, to summarise they are now applying The Limitation Act 1980 to make reduced payments to all the affected 250 staff members identified. As the organisation is refusing to pay me in full I now view all the outstanding monies owed as a debt and will be treating its as such, hence my intention on placing a default notice against the organisation in question. I have established that I have a reasonable argument under S.32 The Limitation Act 1980 subsection ©. to bring a civil claim against my former employers, as a mistake is a major part of the problem AND a reasonable level of due diligence was carried out each month when receiving my monthly salary, also the fact 250 members of staff did not realise that their monthly pay had a shortfall further emphasises the gravity of the problem. For more details see my other post the link can be found in my profile - I can't post the direct link as I only have 5 posts and require 10 posts or more to put links on here I would like to know if possible: 1. Can I place a default notice on the organisations credit file? With Experian / Equifax etc? My former employers have admitted that mistakes with my pay amounted to £10k dating back to 2003 however they have paid me just £1,001 using The Limitation Act 1980 to make this reduced payment 2. This case will be going to court shortly so could I write to the credit reference agencies and ask that a default notice is placed before a court judgement is made based on the correspondence that I have and limited payments made by the organisation? Again any input or advice on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Again, muzzy17
  6. Thanks HB - It would seem the due diligence part is ok, just the 'Mistake' part of S.32 subsection © which is the grey area and could prove a problem. Any forum members on here reading this that would be able to point me to any good legal arguments / case law it would be greatly appreciated and would help me to consider further a potential case against my former employers. Thanks Again, Muzzy 17
  7. Thanks HB much appreciated, just about to retire for the evening but will certainly have a look at this in the morning, thats the 12 hour time difference for you! Muzzy 17
  8. Thanks for your advice steampowered and for providing a legal definition of a mistake in contractual terms, it much appreciated and has clarified things further. To summarise: 1. There are an estimated 250 employees / former employees involved who have all only found out in October 2013. 2. All employees salary is paid on a monthly basis with pension contributions paid on this amount by the organisation at 6.5% 3. I note your comment that the exception doesn't apply if you could have discovered the mistake with reasonable diligence, and consider it would be difficult to argue that you showed reasonable diligence if you did not check whether you were being paid the correct amount. My argument in putting a case forward to point 3 would be that I did in fact demonstrate reasonable due diligence in checking my wage slip each month in line with my contractual obligations of reporting if there were any errors immediately after I realised any mistakes (Which I have now done, albeit a little late) the fact 250 other members of staff didn't realise their pay had a monthly shortfall shows the extent and complexity of the issue in my opinion. I have obtained a copy of the auditors report into the errors and to clarify the mistakes have come as a result of the organisations failings as follows: The error was perpetuated as terms and conditions were copied from the original incorrect calculation for subsequent staff appointments and shift pattern changes instead of reassessing the allowances against the qualifying criteria. The calculation would have been made by Human Resources (HR), but there have been numerous staff changes since 2003 and there is no paperwork to support the original workings. A theory suggested by the current HR employees is that weekends may have been excluded from the calculation due to a misinterpretation of the Staff Handbook. This meant that less than half the shifts would have included unsociable hours and consequently, only the 7.5% (irregular hours) allowance was awarded. As current HR staff were not involved in the original calculation we were unable to substantiate this theory; however it is a feasible explanation. This error was applied to all staff and as more staff were recruited they were placed on the same terms and conditions without revisiting the qualifying criteria, thus compounding the error. We found that over time different shift patterns were developed to accommodate flexible working requests – these were agreed at a local level and implemented without considering the potential impact on the shift patterns. The lack of end to end process and written procedures covering shift pattern changes exacerbated the problem and reduced the possibility of discovering the original error at an earlier opportunity. This control weakness also resulted in the development of over 70 different shift patterns during the ten year period – a complication which has been addressed through the recent consultation process. As you can see from the auditors findings as summarised above it shows the problem (In my opinion) to be a complex one using complex workings out to ensure all staff are paid correctly, i'm not sure anyone would have been able to decipher if a mistake had been made just on the basis of checking their pay slip each month. The problems goes deeper than that. What are your opinions? Do you think that: 1. I have a good argument on the due diligence part of the S.32 definition and the fact there are 250 other staff members who had not realised the mistake up until October 2013? 2. What chance do you think I have if I took court action? i.e Excellent, Good, Ok, Poor, No chance 3. Does anyone know of any relevant case law which would be relevant to the circumstances? 4. Finally a bit of a long shot... but does anyone know if this case would be of interest to a solicitor who would take this on a no win no fee basis? Thanks again for taking the time to respond and for passing on your thoughts. Muzzy 17
  9. Hi, This is my first post so thanks for taking the time to read this. To give you a brief overview of my circumstances I was employed by a government organisation who will remain anonymous for fear of reprisals at this time. I resigned from the organisation in 2009 so that I could facilitate a move to New Zealand on a permanent basis. To give you a brief outline I was employed by the organisation initially as a Support member of staff back in September 2003 leaving to take up a new position within the same organisation in August 2008 again with the same organisation. The dispute with surrounds my salary whilst employed as a Support member of staff with the organisation between the above aforementioned dates. In October 2013 I was made aware by an ex colleague that the organisation had made some mis-calculations with their pay formulas and that some members of staff had been underpaid as well as overpaid. I wrote a letter to the payroll department and was asked to wait until payroll had looked into my pay to decipher if I had been underpaid. In December 2013 management informed me that I was to be paid just £1001.40 (for 1 year's erroneous back pay) without any further consultation of the matter, I duly responded stating that I did not accept this amount and if the organisation did pay this into my bank account It was by no means an acceptance of the matter, I also asked not to be taxed on this amount as I was a foreign resident for tax purposes but they went ahead and taxed the payment again without any further consultation. The organisation along with all other similar government departments across the country have to adhere to the Pay And Conditions Handbook which is a government document, and is also written into employee's contracts. On this occasion along with many other people who were employed by the organisation as support staff, this was not adhered to since 2003 due to an 'administration error' on the organisations behalf. The head of the organisation I used to work for has since replied to me stating that this could be considered as a breach of contract. The reason the organisation are making it difficult for me to recover all outstanding monies owed is because they are applying The Limitations Act 1980 to make reduced payments to all staff affected which I feel is appalling and immoral. This issue has made the local news and the head of the organisation has gone on record stating the organisation "had both moral and legal duties to correct the pay errors" what the head doesn't go on record to say is that the organisation would be applying The Limitations Act 1980 to make reduced payments to staff. The key part I feel, is if I would have knowingly known at the time I was being underpaid I would have acted to recover the money owed its only natural. The organisation have clearly put myself and others at a disadvantage by only realising this error as a mistake in August 2013 and then applying The Limitations Act 1980 to make reduced payments. I believe that section 32 subsection © The Limitation Act 1980 provides a valid argument to postpone the 6 year time limit in recovering the monies owed as I did not knowingly know that a mistake had occurred and I would have quite naturally sought to remedy the problem straight away had I known my pay and pension had a monthly shortfall dating back to 2003. Does anyone know if this would be a good legal argument in court? Here's the S.32 definition (see subsection c): 32.-- • (1) .... where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either- (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or © the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; The period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.... The report that I have obtained puts the errors down to "Inconsistent practice and poor communication between the operational teams, the Resources Management Unit, Human Resources and Payroll. These issues stemmed from the lack of end to end process, control and written procedures governing shift pattern changes. The risk of reoccurrence although much reduced following the discovery of this error, will remain until procedures are formally documented and communicated" In closing there are around 250 members of staff affected I believe. I along with 7 other former employees (That number is likely to increase) are looking to take collective legal action as we are all in the same situation with regards to our pay arrears the only difference is our lengths of service differ. I am the nominated spokesperson for our group. My only questions are: 1. Do this organisation have a case to answer with regards to a breach of contract? 2. Would S.32 subsection © The Limitations Act (See above definition) be a good argument in a court as a mistake has been made? 3. Can an application be lodged to instigate employment Tribunal proceedings regardless of the 3-month timeframe, as I did not knowingly know our pay was erroneous? 4. Would a civil case be more likely to succeed for a breach of contract? 5. Could we also charge the organisation interest on any monies owed in my own case I believe that i'm owed around £10,000 and above? 6. Lastly if there was any future action taken could an application be put to the courts requesting that all our associated costs and legal fees be met by the organisation in the event they lost the case? I hope this all makes sense, I apologise if there was any ramblings. I look forward to hearing from anyone who has experienced similar problems or anyone who specialises in this area of employment law. Thank You Muzzy17
  • Create New...