Limitation Act 1980 - overpaid wages from 2003 - can they get me?

[insulted]

Someone I am helping is being taken to court by a party claiming an alleged overpayment of wages relating to payments made to her that began in early 2003.

 

These payments varied in the first year but remained a fixed amount since 2003 until the middle of 2010 when their employer noticed the payment.

The former employer admitted that the employee had not caused these payments to be made in any way.

 

Several times, it was pointed out to the employer that payments made six years prior to their discovery were certainly statute barred.

 

They tried quoting the part of the Limitations Act that allows the clock to start from "the discovery of the mistake"

but I pointed out to them that could only be the case if the mistake could not have been found, with reasonable diligence, earlier. They have ignored this.

 

The employer are in possession of no more facts than they had when the payments were made.

The former employee has not accepted that this debt is owed.

In one communication, it was actually asked why this question was being ignored as though it did not exist.

 

In 2011, Ascent are pursuing every single payment.

Irwin Mitchell are pursuing the payment.

They were advised that the whole sum could not be pursued as this included payments that were made in 2003.

 

This year, the party, took her to court and have unbelievably refuted the Statute Barred defence with their defence that they did not discover the mistake(s) until 2010

and claimed that stopped the claim being Statute Barred.

 

They have never claimed that the mistake(s) could not have been found with reasonable diligence at the times when the payments were made.

 

Although, the individual payments have been supplied, the actual net payments made to her have never been broken down.

Only the total net payment has been requested.

 

It gets better, the party who are pursuing the debt are... wait for it ... the one and only Ministry of Justice.

 

There are also other issues that can be had with their claim but I am interested to know about the time barred element of this situation.

 

Am I out of perspective by stating this situations is BONKERS?

[dx100uk]

if you take this the same way as lets say PPI, it IS when the 'mistake' is discovered.

but you have to prove that you had no other way to know it was - in the PPI situation, there is clear evidence

through publicity this is so.

 

in this case it is more difficult for them i fear, as you point out, they had staff in place and PAID

to do their job, they failed, why should the person be responsible for their staff/dept lacking ,

 

just remember IR are a solicitor for hire & ascent are a DCA - me thinks they are chancing their arm.

 

i'll move this to the employment forum.

 

i think it is statute barred

 

dx

[rameses_qc]

They do have the right to recover overpayments, whether it's their mistake or not. dx 100 is quite right, the 6 years starts from the date the mistake was discovered. If you look on hte web, there are plenty of cases to show that they will be entitled to recover. Not what you want to hear, but true.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There may be a case for contesting this on unfairness due to the

length of time elapsed I believe this has been done in the past

in relation to overpayments by the MOD.

[insulted]

They do have the right to recover overpayments, whether it's their mistake or not. dx 100 is quite right, the 6 years starts from the date the mistake was discovered. If you look on hte web, there are plenty of cases to show that they will be entitled to recover. Not what you want to hear, but true.

 

No, not what I wanted to hear. I wanted to hear chuckles.

 

Dx100uk is right in stating that the six years can start from the date the mistake is discovered

but,

as he also says but you omit, only if the mistake could not have been found earlier.

 

You have done what so many other parties have done;

perhaps you did it to amuse me.

 

I challenge you to find a SINGLE case on the web that shows that the claimant will be entitled to recover overpayments of wages made over six years

before merely because the employer had not found the mistake until within six years of the claim.

[dx100uk]

no neither could i find any examples

i've moved this to the employment forum

 

i'm sure there is 'some other rules' that play a part here too.

 

 

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Let us please not let this thread which has meaningful input and good

purpose be derailed by ''arcane'' points of law DX is right I can find no

support for any entitlement that claimant has been successful in such

a case after 6 years.

[insulted]

Thanks. This is why I am very surprised they have gone to court for the whole lot, especially as it has been pointed out time and time again. I think rameses was just having a friendly joke.

[rameses_qc]

Friendly Joke? Not a joke really, friendly yes, but it's true I can find no cases of recovery after all this time

Perhaps people on this forum have the wrong impression of me. i was actually even once accused of being a DCA!! Those who know me would know what an insult that was. It's just that nowadays, I think DJs are finding less and less in favour of the debtors, and they are tending towards the creditor

Discussions on points of law may be interesting to some (i could argue them all day) but not helpful to others

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

My feeling is that the instances of blatant debt avoidance on all levels

had over the past decade risen out of all proportion couple this with the

ever increasing levels of fraud in the finance industries has forced judges

to revert to the balance of probabilities when deciding if a debt is payable

or not.