Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

comebackjimmy

Overpaid, now employer clawing back and forcing repayment Contract

Recommended Posts

Hello All,

 

A friend of mine started work for a care home around eleven months ago.

 

From the very start they over paid her and it has just come to light.

 

I do not know for sure if she was aware of the over-payment, (she is cunning enough to be aware and dizzy enough to not notice!, with apologies to feminist readers!!).

 

The company has now demanded she repay the over-payment.  I am not clear what the sums are but she was contracted for around 20 hours a week and was paid for thirty so I would estimate 40 hours x minimum wage x 11 months so something like £3500.  (Please don't comment that this was a huge number that she should have noticed, I already know!).

 

At first they told her she could not leave until she had paid it back, finally an arrangement was made that she will repay at the rate of £50 per month and must settle the balance if she leaves before she has paid it back and they have made her sign a contract to that effect.

 

I take the view that whether or not she has an obligation to pay it back there should not be any contract that in effect ties her to the place.  She should be free to give notice and work elsewhere, any repayment should be at a rate she can afford and if she has a better job offer she should be able to take it without having to wait to pay back the overpay.

 

I would be most grateful for any CAG'ers opinions and comments on this matter and what her rights and obligations are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please follow the link and read on this forum about estoppel.

If she has received the payment completely in good faith – meaning that not only did she accept the fact that the payment was made properly and with authority, but also she had no reason to suspect that there was an error, then she will be entitled to say that they were estopped from recovering the payment – assuming that she no longer had the money and she had not used it to improve her lifestyle beyond what was normal for her.

From the sounds of it, she may not be entitled to rely upon the doctrine of estoppel. You say that she was working 20 hours and she received 30 hours – which is a very substantial overpayment. She would have to persuade a court that she really had no way of suspecting that the money she was receiving had been paid to her in error.

The courts apply very high standards if people try to rely on the doctrine of estoppel by way of a defence.

In terms of them refusing to allow her to leave, they have no right to do this. It's complete nonsense – although they may well decide to hang on to any payment which is owing to her including holiday pay et cetera and she would find it very difficult to deal with this.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add, I completely agree with you that a contract to prevent her leaving the employment would be completely unenforceable. However she probably should realise that the situation may be referred to in any references provided to her for a future job.

Who is the employer? Their approach to this problem – which of course has been of their own making, is frankly bullying and unacceptable.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response BankFodder.

 

First of all her employer is a care home and she is a Part Time Carer.  I do not know what the company is called but would prefer not to publish it here even if I knew.

 

Having read through the link you provided I would tend to agree with your opinion regarding the Estoppel standard of proof especially as she is getting 50% more than she should of been expecting.  Having said that she has had this from the very start and knowing her as I do it is possible she thought this was her monthly wages! 

 

In her everyday life she goes from hand to mouth so there is no improvement in lifestyle unless you consider her absence from Foodbanks an improvement!

 

I think the solution is for her to repay at the low figure that seems to be in place but to disregard the contract requiring her to pay it back before or on leaving.  Should she give notice and work four weeks how can we stop them from witholding her last months wages?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they cant force her to stay but they can deduct the money from her last salary run and then bill her for the rest that is still owed.

If she leaves the problem becomes theirs rather than hers because f she offers to pay 325 a month there is nothing they can do other than try adn sue for the entire amount and risk getting an order for worse payment terms from the court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...