A very strange situation please help!!!

[BankFodder]

I have to agree With Lea!

 

You have openly admitted you ignored Court papers! Lie in Court and thats contempt (prison sentence)

 

Your Husband owes this money pure and simple! Try to sort out a repayment figure that suits all!

 

Jogs

 

Sorry but this is wrong

[Lea_HTH]

Sorry - but things are getting carried away here.

 

Responses are based on the information provided.

 

Firstly, overpayments are recoverable - subject the rules in estoppel. Please, all of you read up about estoppel which is a very important rule of English law.

 

I'm qualified in English law. The facts presented make no representation for the principle of estoppel. Where precisely is the unequivocal representation that legal rights will not be enforced? I think the exact opposite is evident from the information provided, that Sainsbury's had every intention of enforcing their rights and that the OP's husband tried to avoid payment once he left their employ. If there had been some representation, the OP would surely have made reference to it at the point the last salary was deducted - it is at that point that any agreement would likely have been made - i.e. that this final deduction was seen in full settlement. Clearly if that had occurred, instead of ignoring the court papers when they came through, the OP's husband would have sought advice. He ignored them, which suggests he knew he owed the money.

 

Secondly, even if papers have been ignored, this is not fatal. If there is an arguable defence which stands a chance of success, then a setaside will be granted.

 

IF, that is the operative word. From the information provided there isn't an arguable defence. Courts operate on facts and evidence. The facts are a) the OP's husband accepted there was an overpayment, b) he accepted to repay at 75 per month, c) he accepted a deduction from his final wage, d) he ignored the court paperwork, e) Sainsbury's took legal action. Now, unless there was an unequivocal representation contained somewhere in the timeline (unmentioned in any of the posts made), there is NO defence of estoppel, and even if the OP now claimed there was, the evidence, and the OP's actions, doesn't support it.

 

 

Finally, even if the money has to be repaid, it would be repaid by manageable instalments - and if there is a loan agreement in place as suggested by the company, then they would have to abide by the terms of that loan.

 

There are two sides to abide by the terms of a loan: IF Sainsbury's decided to call it a loan due to the repayment schedule, then the lack of payment by the OP's husband was a clear breach, and as such civil action for recovery was appropriate. If it wasn't termed a 'loan', then the overpayment is recoverable as a civil debt anyway. There has been no suggestion that the overpayment shouldn't be paid at an affordable rate - in fact, I've made no reference to how it should be repaid because the OP's husband is unemployed.

 

If there is a loan agreement which was then breached by the employee, then that changes things, of course but that is not what we are being told here.

 

I think the facts are that there was an overpayment of wages and clear agreement to repay that ran for a year, with a further deduction from final salary. The evidence points to no defence of estoppel, and Sainsbury's taking appropriate action for recovery. Look at the time line - overpayment in 2008, recovery started, left job in Nov 2009, probably sent letters (though none referred to), court letter sent, CCJ in 2010.

 

I'm sorry to say that lot of the comments being made on this thread are plainly wrong and will only cause fear and confusion to the Original Poster here and to others who might need similar advice.

 

My comments are not wrong, they are based on the information provided, which makes no reference to there possibly being an unequivocal representation that strict rights will not be enforced by Sainsbury's. If there is, then a defence of estoppel MAY be possible, but in my professional opinion it doesn't seem likely.

 

I don't think that anymore should be said until the court documents have been obtained and the SAR disclosure has been made.

 

I think that people shouldn't be encouraged to think that everything is a claim. Many people get invaluable assistance on here with regards to unfair charges etc, but an overpayment of wages is a mistake from which no one should expect unjust enrichment. This isn't a case of a promise not to chase for the payment - there is no evidence to suggest that at all.

 

If the OP wants to waste time and money on 'fighting' this, then that is ultimately her choice, but as I said in my very first post, she'll need the assistance of a legal adviser of some description.

 

Even if the judgment were set aside, it is unlikely a future hearing would not have the same result...not that that is a reason not to get a judgment set aside, it's just my opinion based on the facts provided by the OP.

[Lea_HTH]

Sorry but this is mainly wrong

 

The only part you appeared to quibble about was the issue of estoppel. I don't think it is helpful to take a blanket quote and not specify precisely where, how and why you think it is 'mainly wrong'.

[BankFodder]

 

I'm qualified in English law.

 

Me too

[shamsa01]

Could you please advise if we ignore this ccj In that case when its going to be removed from the credit file ? Thanks

[Lea_HTH]

Me too

 

Then you'd know about the unequivocal representation requirement of estoppel.

[Lea_HTH]

Could you please advise if we ignore this ccj In that case when its going to be removed from the credit file ? Thanks

 

What you choose to do is entirely up to you. What I'd advise you to do is sort it out, but not without the assistance of some legal advice on a face to face basis. You could start with a CAB office or a community law centre or similar.

[greasmonkey]

how can they claim its a loan it was a over payment

by there mistake they are trying to cover for the HR

[shamsa01]

if i choose to ignore it when its going to be removed from the experian file. Thanks

Edited January 17, 2012 by shamsa01

[shamsa01]

is it going to take 6 years?