Register | Forgotten password?

Job Hunting
In Work
Thinking About Quitting

Still being paid after I have left the job.

Tell em and pay it back its not worth the hassle

Some idiot in the payroll department of a very well known company I used to work for did not sign me off correctly when I left. The first couple of months I assumed it was holiday pay and other entltilements as I never used to be the sort of person that checks their bank accounts regulaly (I do now!!) By the time I realised they were still paying me I had already spent most of it and as they had no contact with me I assumed they would stop paying me. But no! They contuniued and I was under a bit of stress at the time and spent it. Six months down the line I get a letter threatening me of legal action. I had to pay back £500 a month for over a year approx £8k otherwise I was liable for prosecution. As an extremley honest person I found the whole affair very difficult to deal with. It was just really tempting and I took it and I got burnt, don't put yourself through that. Give them a call, be honest and send em a check back.

Good luck



3/10/2008 9:41:18 PM

I got paid after I resigned

Please help! I got one payment after I resigned and by the time my previous employer notified me the funds where used. I was too afraid to contact them because they where asking for the full value and didn’t have the money. I resigned because they treated me really badly and I started taking sick days. In the end I called them and said I could not coming back They then sent out a letter threatening legal action, which I was happy about because that way I could contact their solicitors and arrange a payment plan rather that talk to the company. Now I have received a letter saying an employment agency has asked for a reference and if I don’t pay by the 19/04/08 they will tell them I am dishonest and untrustworthy. They are also going to call the police and give me a CCJ! I am really scared and I have never been in trouble with the police. They have also said that they will warn other potential employers off me. This will ruin my career. I have spent 3 years training to be an Accounting Technician and they are going to make it that I will not be able to practise accountancy!!! Please help, I am really worried.

Unemployed 2008

4/4/2008 10:37:50 PM

The good news is that they cannot call the Police. This is a matter of civil law, not criminal law. However, I'm afraid that is all the good news. You knew that you had been overpaid, and you made no attempt to return the money or keep the money to one side until it was asked for. You refused to respond to their letters asking for the return of the money. Your explanation for this does not bear any examination - if you cannot afford to repay the money, you also cannot afford to pay a solicitor as you suggest you intended to do (there being no legal aid for this), and you could at any time have explained all this to the company and come to an arrangement any time with the company. Regardless of whether they treated you badly, you walked out giving no notice and kept a salary payment which was erroneously processed due to your actions. You then ignored their attempts to resolve this. You are a human being, not an ostrich! So yes, they can take you to court, and they have a perfectly solid case. You will then end up owing the money you can't afford, plus their fees and the courts fees, plus a CCJ. In what way does that improve the situation? Under the circusmtances they are perfectly entitled to tell a potential employer the truth. It must be the truth, but frankly, the truth does you little credit. Grow up and take things into hand. Go see an advice centre immediately and ask for help in making a repayment offer.


4/5/2008 8:05:17 AM


I think that there is somewhere an issue of reliance that the company had overpaid you and that you had reason to believe that it was your bonus and holiday pay, you also relied on the payment and spent in so i think that the decision would be that as it was their mistake and you relied on that mistake and acted to your detriment in spending the money, in equity i think they cannot claim it back.


4/7/2008 11:38:18 PM

Apparently not so !

fully aired here


4/8/2008 1:07:48 PM

No. It isn't dodgy. It is illegal and immoral. We'd all love to be paid for doing what we want, but life isn't like that. Your employer is entitled to reclaim this money at any point in the next six years, when they realise their mistake. There are no loopholes and no excuses. If you fail / refuse to pay you will be taken to court, increase your debt, and still have to pay. And employers usually do notice their mistake - we have plenty of occasions on here to show that it may take a year, or more, in some cases, but they notice. Do yourself a favour - tell them immediately to stop you getting any further into debt to them, and make arrangements to repay what you have had and aren't entitled to. They are more likely to be understanding and flexible if you own up. If you decide on the other option, you are on your own - because there isn't a lawful way of keeping the money, and it's not too far removed from fraud if you knowingly take money that you aren't entitled to.


4/8/2008 1:24:08 PM

oops - sorry, ignore last post. Idiot me didn't notice I hadn't switched to "last post" view and answered one left in 2005!!!!


4/8/2008 1:25:39 PM

Thank you for the advice. I never knew I wouldn't be able to get legal aid and I had pinned all of my hopes on it. When I left the company I DID hand I my notice (NOV 07) and I received a P45 at the end of DEC 07, so it was not a case of getting paid and trying to keep the money. The company was really horrid to me when I worked there. They told me that if I was planning to have any children in the near future, I would fail my probation period. And that if I didn't work 12 hour days (when 7.5 hours was in my contract), they would also let me go. By the time I left I was a nervous wreck. But you are right and I have now sent them a letter with a proposed payment plan. This has boosted my confidence because I am taking the matter into my own hands, when I left the company I had no self belief and started taking lower paid jobs, but since sending the letter, I have applied for a higher paid job and got it! So thanks once again.

Unemployed 2008

4/8/2008 9:29:03 PM

Holiday pay during notice

Hi, I was made redundant on the 11th Feb and given 6 weeks pay in lieu of notice. My holiday year starts in Jan and they have only paid me holiday accrued up to the 11th Feb. Am i also entitled to holiday pay accrued up to the end of the notice period?


2/26/2009 5:43:42 PM

Possibly, but it depends whether or not the arrangement included your holidays for that period -PILON sometimes can, and it depdns on what the agreement said.


2/26/2009 9:25:23 PM

Yes - depends on your contract. If your contract gives the employer the right to pay in lieu of notice then this payment does not have to include any benefits that would accrue over that period - you are treated as a leaver on 11th Feb.

If there is no contractual right for them to do this, and they have simply chosen to do so then you should be in the same position as if you had actually continued to be employer until six weeks later, which would include any holiday that would accrue over that period.

monkey steve

2/27/2009 3:50:51 PM

What are my notice responsibilities

im currently working in a nhs trust i have been suffering from stress an depression recently due to personal and family issues and am no longer wishing to pursue my career an wish a fresh start to help my health and find a new job to challenge me as im very unhppy in current post. until recently i have had a very good sickness record but due to these issues and family problems i have been ill, and run down a lot over the last few months. i wish to resign and should give 4 weeks notice but as my post it a modern apprenticship and a student post on one day a week release to college i wish to resign immediatly as it would be of no benefit to carry on course if i dont complete it. What are the possible legal problems i face if i give no notice or give notice and present a sick note to cover me for last few weeks


3/17/2009 6:17:37 PM

consultation and notice period

I worked within a team of 3 people and 2 wks ago we were all called into a meeting and advised that for economic reasons we were to be made redundant. There was no notice that this was coming and we have been given a months notice. There was no consultation period. We have been place on gardening leave. We have still not received notification in writing of the leaving date etc. I have only been with the firm for 15months so am therefore not entitled to any redundancy pay. After a lot of prompting we finally received an email from the HR Dept, in which they advised us that we were under a consultation period and therefore our notice period would not start until 16th July making our last day with the company 16th August. Later in the day we rec'd a further email changing this and saying our last working day would be 16th July. What we want to know is does the consultation period have to be different to the notice period. The work that we had is being farmed out to 3 other depts within the firm at other offices but we have not been offered the chance to relocate to one of these offices.


6/27/2009 4:47:53 PM

worth reading again


7/25/2009 7:45:53 PM

getting a job after settling out of court with your last employer.

Does anyone have any serious advice on getting a job after settling out of court with your last employer. I got a good settlement but it will not last forever and I do not seem to receive any responses to my applications.



10/6/2009 4:32:44 PM

was redundancy procedure followed properly

I was called into a meeting on Monday at 2pm to have a letter read out to me saying my job of 4 and a half years was at risk of redundancy the reason being that the company needed money to employ temporary people to cover a busy period in another department. The reason I was chosen was because I scored lowest in my department in a review that took place back on october 2008! The print out states that the review was done in January 2009 but it was not done with me there if it was! One of the reasons that I got a lower score was because I do not have a technical qualification, my employment states that I should undertake three years training to achieve this qualification. The college would not take me onto the course because I have a learning disability, dyscalculia, and I would not be able to comprehend the advanced maths. For the past three years I have been asking for alternative training that would not include maths but would have the same status and be of benefit to the company but they have offered me nothing. I was then told to come back on Wednesday (yesterday) for a meeting so I "could have my say" I was told that there was a temporary contract part time opening in an unskilled production job (putting a bit of metal into a machine and pulling a handle!), I told then that as the job was an enormous drop in pay, hours and status (from a technical sales job) it was not a suitable altenative. There was no mention of redundancy pay etc at this meeting. I was then told to come back today for the final meeting where I was told my contract was terminated and I was to be paid for 4 weeks notice at home, I am to be told what my redundancy pay is in a letter over the next day or so. So in the space of 4 days I have gone from employed to jobless. Were procedures followed correctly? Can they choose me based on a low score caused by a learning disability?

Many thanks in advance.



11/26/2009 1:40:05 PM



I wonder if some one could advise me. In a redundancy situation, is it a role which should be redundant or a person?

Let me give you some background to detail my dilema. Back in May, my OH was put at risk of redundancy. He had to produce a business case etc and appear before directors to state his case of why they should keep him. There was approx 60 in the company put at risk and the intention was to terminate on approx 30. He was saved.

However, at the beginning of this month (29th Nov) He was called in once more and put at risk. This time it appears only 12 have been put at risk, but it has never been stated how many will be saved. There are no job descriptions for the roles required in the newly structured department, and no guidance has been given as to the selection criteria. He has been with his current company nearly 21 years as an Architect.

So back to the initial question. Should the company be informing the dammed dozen of the roles to be filled? or can they make a person redundant because a)they are over the hill/face doesnt fit etc?


12/17/2009 2:08:02 PM

Right, in theory jobs are redundant, not people. However, having decided that a role is to go, the employer then has to select which employees will lose their job because of it.

So, having identified that a job is to go (or even just having identified that it may have to go, and before they have decided on a final decision or final numbers) the employer should then put all people doing that job at risk of redundancy, and then properly consult to see who should lose their job when the role disappears. They cannot simply tell an individual that they have been selected to be made redundant without putting any comparators at risk and consulting with everybody.

If only one architects position is to go and there are 12 architects at the company then it is entirely correct to put all 12 at risk of redundancy. The consultation process should then look at how many jobs need to disappear (although in practice this may be something of a niceity and is likely to have been decided upon before it gets this far), and how to objectively select the person/people who will lose their job(s) because of this.

If there are, say, 24 architects at the company then only putting 12 at risk is potentially grounds for an unfair dismissal appeal, unless the employer can demonstrate why half of them should not be at risk (for example if they have completely separate skill sets, or are of a different level of seniority/responsibility, although there may still be options here for challenging that decision).

If the previous redundancy exercise had a wider scope in terms of the type of jobs that were going then it would be fair to have put more people at risk last time than this.

As regards selection, the employer must set objective and non-discriminatory criteria, but that still gives them a lot of scope to skew the criteria in favour certain individuals, and if challenged at a tribunal they are generally not too interested in the criteria unless they are discriminatory.

Obviously this all depends on the exact details of what is happening, so I can't really say any more, but come back if you have more detail.

monkey steve

12/17/2009 2:41:57 PM