Overpaid by my job!!!!

Jaysoose

torresistheman wrote: »

I have sympathy coz Id have prob done the exact same thing! It's easy to say he shouldn't have spent it coz ye have money. It's done now though so I won concour with most of what has been said and just pay the €150 a month back

Good luck mate

What has having money got to do with anything? Its easy to say he shouldnt have spent it because it's the truth!! Basically he stole money from his employer and the fact that he has not been sacked or had the guards at his door is a miracle. Take a loan and pay back the money, any advice that says different is nonsense.

Jo King

Jaysoose wrote: »

What has having money got to do with anything? Its easy to say he shouldnt have spent it because it's the truth!! Basically he stole money from his employer and the fact that he has not been sacked or had the guards at his door is a miracle. Take a loan and pay back the money, any advice that says different is nonsense.

He has not been sacked because the employer has no way of getting the money back if he is sacked. the guards are not at the door because no criminal offence has been committed or reported to them. There is no miracle about it. Employers who sue for overpaid wages have often lost civil cases let alone be in a position to prove a criminal case.

Tony Broke

The ball is in your court OP, they dont have a leg to stand on.

Do you need this job?

Can you get another student type job in tesco,hmv etc?

You didnt steal any money OP, they gave you the wrong contract, you signed it and they either have to pay you whats in the contract or sack you for not carrying out the contract, which you cant do as your a student.

Dont pay them anything, let them sack you/ get fired and go get a job in xtra vision.

See a solicitor first thing and he/she will put your mind at rest.

They ****ed up, not you

Jaysoose

Jo King wrote: »

He has not been sacked because the employer has no way of getting the money back if he is sacked. the guards are not at the door because no criminal offence has been committed or reported to them. There is no miracle about it. Employers who sue for overpaid wages have often lost civil cases let alone be in a position to prove a criminal case.

I dobt very much the employer would miss this money in the big scheme of things so the possibility of getting sacked is very high and they are obviously giving him a chance to redeem himself. All the employer is obliged to do is offer a repayment option and if the op decides that he wants to fight this (i dont know why)then he does not have a leg to stand on. He knowingly spent money that was not his!! unless the definitions of theft and fraud have changed im pretty sure this is illegal.

Seriously its time to man up and pay the money back as is this the footing he wants to start a career on, dublin is a small place when it comes to office culture and any prospective employer will be able to find out about this my making a simple phonecall (it happens). OP you have a chance to put this right and if i was you i would take it and be grateful.

Mr. Presentable

Jo King wrote: »

Employers who sue for overpaid wages have often lost civil cases let alone be in a position to prove a criminal case.

Go on then, demonstrate just one......

Jo King

nipplenuts wrote: »

Go on then, demonstrate just one......

In Hold v Markham , [ [1923] 2 KB 504 . ] the defendant was a demobilised RAF officer. His name was on a list called the Emergency List, which meant that under a certain military Regulation he was entitled to be paid a gratuity at a lower rate than if he was not on the list. However, the plaintiffs, who acted as the Government's agent for the payments of such gratuities, paid the defendant at a higher rate in breach of the relevant military regulation. Subsequently they sought to recover the amount of this overpayment. The defendant had already spent the money. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff's action failed on two grounds:

(i) the plaintiff's mistake was one of law rather than one of fact; and


(ii) as their conduct had led the defendant to believe that he might treat the money as his own and he had altered his position in that belief, the plaintiffs were estopped from alleging that the money had been paid under a mistake.


The leading case on this is County Council of Avon v Howlett , [ [1983] IRLR 171 . ] an English Court of Appeal decision. In this case a teacher was off work for two years as a result of being injured in an accident and subsequently retired. Under his conditions of service, he was entitled to be paid at his full rate of pay for the first six months whilst off work, at half-rate for the next six months and at no pay thereafter. In fact, through a mistake, he was regularly overpaid. By the time the Council became aware of the mistake the aggregate sum overpaid was just over £1,000.

When this was discovered the Council sought recovery of the money. On the defendant's behalf, it was argued that he had spent the money and that his employers were estopped from claiming restitution in respect of the overpayment. It was held by Sheldon J, at first instance, [ [1981] IRLR 447 . ] that the Council was estopped from reclaiming that part of the overpayment which the defendant had lost or expended in reliance upon the employers' representations but that the plaintiffs were entitled to restitution for the balance of the monies overpaid.

This decision was overturned, however, by the Court of Appeal who held that all the conditions for the operation of an estoppel were satisfied in the instant case and that estoppel barred the whole of the plaintiff's claim for the amount of the overpayment. It was further held that an employer who overpays an employee will be estopped from asserting his claim to restitution if the following conditions are satisfied by the employee:

(i) the employer has led the employee to believe that he is entitled to treat the money as his own;


(ii) the employee receiving the overpayment of money has in good faith altered his position as a result; and


(iii) the overpayment was not caused primarily by the fault of the employee. [ Per Slade LJ, supra n.21 at p.178. ]





There are two!

Jo King

Jaysoose wrote: »

He knowingly spent money that was not his!! unless the definitions of theft and fraud have changed im pretty sure this is illegal.

Are you familiar with the Criminal Justice (Theft & Fraud Offences Act) 2001? I think not.

Mr. Presentable

Jo King wrote: »

In Hold v Markham , [ [1923] 2 KB 504 . ] the defendant was a demobilised RAF officer. His name was on a list called the Emergency List, which meant that under a certain military Regulation he was entitled to be paid a gratuity at a lower rate than if he was not on the list. However, the plaintiffs, who acted as the Government's agent for the payments of such gratuities, paid the defendant at a higher rate in breach of the relevant military regulation. Subsequently they sought to recover the amount of this overpayment. The defendant had already spent the money. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff's action failed on two grounds:

(i) the plaintiff's mistake was one of law rather than one of fact; and


(ii) as their conduct had led the defendant to believe that he might treat the money as his own and he had altered his position in that belief, the plaintiffs were estopped from alleging that the money had been paid under a mistake.


The leading case on this is County Council of Avon v Howlett , [ [1983] IRLR 171 . ] an English Court of Appeal decision. In this case a teacher was off work for two years as a result of being injured in an accident and subsequently retired. Under his conditions of service, he was entitled to be paid at his full rate of pay for the first six months whilst off work, at half-rate for the next six months and at no pay thereafter. In fact, through a mistake, he was regularly overpaid. By the time the Council became aware of the mistake the aggregate sum overpaid was just over £1,000.

When this was discovered the Council sought recovery of the money. On the defendant's behalf, it was argued that he had spent the money and that his employers were estopped from claiming restitution in respect of the overpayment. It was held by Sheldon J, at first instance, [ [1981] IRLR 447 . ] that the Council was estopped from reclaiming that part of the overpayment which the defendant had lost or expended in reliance upon the employers' representations but that the plaintiffs were entitled to restitution for the balance of the monies overpaid.

This decision was overturned, however, by the Court of Appeal who held that all the conditions for the operation of an estoppel were satisfied in the instant case and that estoppel barred the whole of the plaintiff's claim for the amount of the overpayment. It was further held that an employer who overpays an employee will be estopped from asserting his claim to restitution if the following conditions are satisfied by the employee:

(i) the employer has led the employee to believe that he is entitled to treat the money as his own;


(ii) the employee receiving the overpayment of money has in good faith altered his position as a result; and


(iii) the overpayment was not caused primarily by the fault of the employee. [ Per Slade LJ, supra n.21 at p.178. ]



Deductions and overpayments

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act provides:

(a) Where the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable to the employee on that occasion (after making any legal deductions); or


(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer are paid to the employee, then —


except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by an employer from the wages of the employee on that occasion.

There are two!

They are not. Both are cases from England, and your Payment of Wages ASct quote refers where the employer underpays, not the OP's case.

Jo King

nipplenuts wrote: »

They are not. Both are cases from England, and your Payment of Wages ASct quote refers where the employer underpays, not the OP's case.

They are both cases where the employer overpaid and failed to recover. English decisions are accepted as persuasive authority in Irish courts. The quote is from the English Payment of Wages Act and is not relevant. I included it in error. I have edited it out.

Jaysoose

Jo King wrote: »

Are you familiar with the Criminal Justice (Theft & Fraud Offences Act) 2001? I think not.

Explain how knowingly spending somebody elses money is not stealing.

Jaysoose

Jo King wrote: »

They are both cases where the employer overpaid and failed to recover. English decisions are accepted as persuasive authority in Irish courts. The quote is from the English Payment of Wages Act and is not relevant. I included it in error. I have edited it out.

The first example is not applicable here:

The first example was paid at the higher rate unwittingly from the very very start so he believed it as his own money as he had no way of knowing different. THE OP KNEW HE WAS OVERPAID and spent it anyway this is a completely different situation.

Jo King

The o/p was given the money. He did nothing to cause the employer to give him more money than he was entitled. All the happened is that the o/p became indebted to the employer on foot of a resulting trust. the cases above are examples of where an employer has failed to recover. It is unlikely that the o/p would succeed but in the position he is in his immediate bosses do not wish their superiors in England to find out.

Thefe & Fraud offences Act 2001.

5.—(1) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by that person of rights which that person believes himself or herself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor's title, amount to theft of the property.

The o/p has not stolen. He was given the money through no fault of his own. his later dealing with it as his own is not theft.

Jaysoose

The examples are different circumstances as the main point i made was that the OP knew he was overpaid and spent the money where the eaxmple used the guy didnt know he was being overpaid. These are completely different situations.

You know, i know and the OP knows he spent money that was not his and he shouldnt have, there is no justification other than he was a Student and he obviously pissed it up against a wall. The legalities of it may be a grey area i concede that much. Basically it boils down to what sort of person the op is and how much he values what reputation he has.

Thoie

OP - your local Citizen's Advice Bureau will have free legal advice nights - find out when it is, and use it.

Given that the overpayment was made over the course of 3 months, a reasonable repayment scheme would be over the same term, in even installments. You could ask for leniency and make it four months, due to the Christmas period falling during the first 3 months.

Do not start spouting off your rights from the get go. Be polite and rational, and explain that you are unable to come up with 850 immediately. Do some maths, and show that by repaying 220 a week, instead of 150, then you will have repaid within x amount of time. Ask how this affects your paid tax, and whether they have factored the tax into account, as by being overpaid you will most likely have overpaid both income tax and PRSI as well. The wages department will need to ensure that this is sorted out with the tax office on your behalf, or else you will not be able to reclaim that money from Revenue. Suggest that when payroll have sorted that out, and determined the final value of the tax and PRSI overpayment, that you will reclaim it from Revenue and pay them that final lump sum in Feb/March, when it's returned to you.

Example (using non-real figures):
Let's say you were overpaid 2k over 3 months. Of this, you paid 25% in taxes (payroll deduction, provided you are PAYE). So that's 500 due back from Revenue, which you will receive in March provided payroll have done the paperwork correctly. So you offer to pay them 500 a month for the next 3 months (=1500) + the 500 refund in March (=2000).

If the overpayment pushed you into the higher tax bracket, take that into account as well. MABS or the Revenue Information line can help you calculate the tax overpayment if you're not familiar with the sums involved.

Jo King

Jaysoose wrote: »

The examples are different circumstances as the main point i made was that the OP knew he was overpaid and spent the money where the eaxmple used the guy didnt know he was being overpaid. These are completely different situations.

You know, i know and the OP knows he spent money that was not his and he shouldnt have, there is no justification other than he was a Student and he obviously pissed it up against a wall. The legalities of it may be a grey area i concede that much. Basically it boils down to what sort of person the op is and how much he values what reputation he has.

So now we are talking about morality not law! He did not steal the money. He owes it. He did not do a runner when it was discovered. He can make an arrangement to repay it at a reasonable pace. He wopuld be an idiot to bowwor money to pay it back. As soon as he pauid it back he would be fired and would have no way to pay off the loan. His fool bosses should get their act together and this kind of thing would not happen.

Riceal

Hmm. I was talking to a guy regarding Employment Law the other day, and he was giving a "For instance, did you know..." which was that if a company give you a contract and you accept it, it is legally binding even with out your signature! I never knew that, but according to him it is law. You could call the free legal advice bureau - they are brilliant.

This happened to my brother in a company he worked in years ago. Same exact story. A few others in the company had the wrong contract too, and were all being overpaid. My bro left after 6 months, and got away scot free. The others that didn't leave in time got caught out and had to pay back. Although the company was much nicer in the repayment agreement than your situation.

I've often heard simular stories of people that worked for this company my bro worked in in this situation - I wonder if you work for that big computer company too????

flynnc8

OP I truely believe that you should repay the money in some way shape or form. Although I do not feel you should have to do this by their terms, Considering it was their mistake in the first place. I'm sure a more reasonable repayment scheme can be arranged. Just speak to your team leader or a member of payroll in a respectable way and I'm sure they'll understand. I know for a fact I would have spent the money just as fast as I recieved it and not thought twice about it. I am also sure that you are not the first person to be in this situation.

To everyone else slamming the OP, how are you to know that the guy was not expecting bonuses, overtime, commission etc. Maybe the OP was unsure about the exact amount due to him and only realised 3 months in, that it was a contineous thing and needed to be sorted. Although I'm sure you all agree, ignorance is bliss and even if he was well aware of the situation, God loves a tryer lol...

Anyways definitly get your ass down to the civil rights place and find out exactly where you stand. Is it really worth leaving a job over a couple of hundred euro??

mountainyman

Do not admit that you knew you were being overpaid.
Offer to pay back at a slow rate that you can afford. In writing.
Get another job.
Offer to pay back at a slow rate (but a tiny bit quicker). In writing.

You DO have to repay the money in law but the repayment need not create difficulties for you.

Jaysoose

flynnc8 wrote: »

OP I truely believe that you should repay the money in some way shape or form. Although I do not feel you should have to do this by their terms, Considering it was their mistake in the first place. I'm sure a more reasonable repayment scheme can be arranged. Just speak to your team leader or a member of payroll in a respectable way and I'm sure they'll understand. I know for a fact I would have spent the money just as fast as I recieved it and not thought twice about it. I am also sure that you are not the first person to be in this situation.

To everyone else slamming the OP, how are you to know that the guy was not expecting bonuses, overtime, commission etc. Maybe the OP was unsure about the exact amount due to him and only realised 3 months in, that it was a contineous thing and needed to be sorted. Although I'm sure you all agree, ignorance is bliss and even if he was well aware of the situation, God loves a tryer lol...

Anyways definitly get your ass down to the civil rights place and find out exactly where you stand. Is it really worth leaving a job over a couple of hundred euro??

Im one of the people 'slamming the OP' because he admitted he knew about it straight away, i know this because i took the time to read the thread before commenting.

Riceal

Jaysoose wrote: »

Im one of the people 'slamming the OP' because he admitted he knew about it straight away, i know this because i took the time to read the thread before commenting.

Before I start: I have only read the first few posts and scanned the rest - I don't have the time to read pages of posts... wish I did!
Seriously Jaysoose, the OP is only asking for our advise on a situation he's in. It was dishonest of him not to alert his bosses straight away that he was being overpaid but its not your call here to judge. He's hardly a criminal. He wants to pay the money back - which I understood from his first post, he just wants to do it a pace that is reasonable to him. Which is totally acceptable considering the oversight was due to bad management on his employers side.
You obviously find dishonesty deeply upsetting as well as very black and white, which must make life very hard for you.
He really isn't the first and definitely won't be the last person in this situation. Of all the people I've known or met that have found themselves in such a situation NONE have ever been the person to admit they are being overpaid, and rather left it to the company to work it out for themselves.
The question here isn't whether the OP in honest/dishonest, and the aim isn't 'to slam' him. The question is what he should do now, and the aim is to advise!

Jaysoose

Riceal wrote: »

Before I start: I have only read the first few posts and scanned the rest - I don't have the time to read pages of posts... wish I did!
Seriously Jaysoose, the OP is only asking for our advise on a situation he's in. It was dishonest of him not to alert his bosses straight away that he was being overpaid but its not your call here to judge. He's hardly a criminal. He wants to pay the money back - which I understood from his first post, he just wants to do it a pace that is reasonable to him. Which is totally acceptable considering the oversight was due to bad management on his employers side.
You obviously find dishonesty deeply upsetting as well as very black and white, which must make life very hard for you.
He really isn't the first and definitely won't be the last person in this situation. Of all the people I've known or met that have found themselves in such a situation NONE have ever been the person to admit they are being overpaid, and rather left it to the company to work it out for themselves.
The question here isn't whether the OP in honest/dishonest, and the aim isn't 'to slam' him. The question is what he should do now, and the aim is to advise!

You have obviously not read the posts or you would see my advice - pay it back while he has the chance, however that comes about is up to both parties. If somebody does not want to be judged then dont post on a public forum. I dont find dishonesty very upsetting merely giving my opinion on this particular scenario and it is black and white he knew the money was not his and he spent it so please dont assume things about me and generalise

smelltheglove

To be honest the way this would work out if it was taken any further would be, you fraudulently accepted money you were not entitled to. However they should be more accomadating. In the social welfare when someone claims money they are not entitled to that amount is deducted weekley from their 'book'. I knew someone who owed 40k due to 11 yrs of false claims. Now she is entitled to it she repays something small like 30 euro a week which is deducted from the amount she owes.

However I have also seen it go another way, an old friend of mine had 500 pounds put into his bank account when an error was made within the bank. He went off thinking wahey I got extra pay spent the money, a week later was called into the bank for a meeting and told to bring a representative along, he brought his mother, he was told his account would be closed as soon as the 500 pounds was back in it, so literally he was kicked out of the bank for fraudulently accepting money he was not entitled to...

I just hope you can work out something similar to the first case.

Riceal

Jaysoose wrote: »

If somebody does not want to be judged then dont post on a public forum. ... so please dont assume things about me and generalise

do you see the contradiction here?

craichoe

Jaysoose wrote: »

Explain how knowingly spending somebody elses money is not stealing.

As far as i can tell the contract between the OP and his employer is not valid.

Put it this way,

You accidently transfer money to the wrong bank account.
Ring the bank and see if they'll give it back .. they won't .. and if the person tells you for f*ck off your screwed.

Jaysoose

Just out of interest OP did you get sorted yet?

Bender's Game

nope. they gave me a much better job in work and then gave me an impossible payment plan. I'm going in Thursday to discuss the matter with the payroll manager. fun times ahead

LegacyUser

I have been off work for 7 months due to illness . My employers paid 3 months of voluntary sick scheme.Before I went sick I changed from full-time poisition to a part-time position to take some studies. My part-time contract finished exactly after they paid me the first 3 months. As in my contract says that I would revert to full=time position on the 8th may, when I got 3 months more of sich pay, I thought they were paying for the full-time position. So, I phoned them when they stopped paying me to ask about it and what I got back was that I had an overpayment of over 1000 euros. That was convenient as they are getting back what they pay me on the first 3 months that I was entitled.
It's not like I spent their money just because I wanted.
If my contract was reverted to full-time, I still don't know. HR never sent me any notification.
Does anyone think that I have a case ?
Thanks