Is it legal!!!!

calliopeia

I was working for a large company (6 weeks ago). I hand them my notice four weeks in advance I received my pay on the 20th (20th to the 20th) I also received a bonus for the last period. Today my Ex-manager phones me up and tells me I owe the company €560, not telling me why or how. What legal ground do I stand on???? I will want a meeting with her and a full brake down of how I owe them this money. Any advice would be wonderful.

Thanks in advance

Ok just found I cant get legal advice here but anyones personal experience would be great. Thanks
P.S. know of any where I can get legal advice too?

maidhc

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

calliopeia

I don't think that would hold up in court (if it comes to that)

Time Magazine

If they've overpaid you, it's theirs and you have to pay it back.

Orchard Rebel

Go to your local free legal advice centre (see www.flac.ie) and have a chat with someone about this one. Given the amount and circumstances, it could be well worth your while.

faceman

Ask him to present to you in writing why you owe them money and an explanation as to why it is only being advised to you now.

If its money you owe from a period of 6 or so months previous then dont worry about it. And dont pay it.

However its actually tax you havent paid then do pay it. But dont do anything until you get it in writing from them. And dont sweat it.

let us all know how it goes.

calliopeia

I haven't been over paid I was paid for the hours worked!!!!!! And a bonus for the last period. I've got someone looking into it for me. And I will keep you posted. Thanks guys.

calliopeia

faceman wrote:

Ask him to present to you in writing why you owe them money and an explanation as to why it is only being advised to you now.

If its money you owe from a period of 6 or so months previous then dont worry about it. And dont pay it.

However its actually tax you havent paid then do pay it. But dont do anything until you get it in writing from them. And dont sweat it.

let us all know how it goes.

I will be, right down to the last cent.

eth0_

Would this be a company who's name starts with C and ends with T, in the city centre?

I had similar problems after being made redundant, I had to chase them, tell them I was recording the phone calls if I needed to take it any further etc. It took me nearly 2 months to get the money I was owed and even then they got it wrong and had to send me a cheque for the balance.

Document everything,

calliopeia

eth0_ wrote:

Would this be a company who's name starts with C and ends with T, in the city centre?

I had similar problems after being made redundant, I had to chase them, tell them I was recording the phone calls if I needed to take it any further etc. It took me nearly 2 months to get the money I was owed and even then they got it wrong and had to send me a cheque for the balance.

Document everything,

Nope they don't start with a C and end in a T. That is the word that best describes them.

I was told when we where going to paid month we would be paid, for the 20th to the 20th. And just tonight I found out that, that wasn't the case. I was being paid from the first to the end of the month. Putting that out there yes I do owe them money, but as I just found out I have be underpaid on many occasions that I had mentioned to them! This is not taking into consideration that I handed in my notice the recommended number of weeks and my manager, messed this all up. I don't have a clue want to do or how to approach this.

gandalf

As already said make sure they give you a breakdown in writing before you pay anything.

timmywex

its your money, its there fault they made a mistake and its totally up to you to pay it or not

its like if you are undercharged in a shop, they can ring you and ask for more but you can say no!!
also, if a bank atm gives you too much money by accident, the bank can and will phone to ask for the money back but legally it is your money now

to sum up, its your decision but you can keep the money if you want and they cant do anthing about it

aphex™

timmywex wrote:

its like if you are undercharged in a shop, they can ring you and ask for more but you can say no!!
also, if a bank atm gives you too much money by accident, the bank can and will phone to ask for the money back but legally it is your money now

I seem to remember a court case where people had thousands put into their bank account by accident and spent it. They were forced to pay it back. I would disagree with your use of that example.

Maybe the op should see a solicitor, as some suggested.

Jo King

When an employee is given money by your employer which they reasonably assume is part of their normal remuneration the employer will be estopped by law from seeking a return of the money.
In the event of harassment by the employer the employee can go to a Rights Commissioner to have the issue determined.
In the case of a shop giving back too much change in a situation in which it is obvious a mistake has been made it would be theft to retain it.
In general if a person is given money by another by accident then a trust arises in favour of the person who gave them the money. the person who got the money must give it back if asked. There are a number of situations where this does not happen. There have been a number of employee overpayment cases in which the employee has been allowed to keep the money effectively because it would be unfair to make them return money which they had been given to treat as their own.

timmywex

aphex&#8482 wrote:

I seem to remember a court case where people had thousands put into their bank account by accident and spent it. They were forced to pay it back. I would disagree with your use of that example.

Maybe the op should see a solicitor, as some suggested.

im talking about a bank atm, i remember a case a few months back in my local area where an atm dispensed too much and the person recieving the money does not legally have to give the money back as it is considered they have just taken it out and the person can claim they only wanted a certain amount and the rest was a mistake which is by default, now their's as a result of the banks mistake

gilroyb

Like when someone makes the mistake of leaving their house or car door open?

Just because the bank decided it wasn't worth their hassle to chase the money isn't the same as saying they couldn't have.

OP on a slightly different part of your issue, if it's that they're saying you are no longer entitled to the bonus because you left, then I seem to remember a case recently of people working for financial firms who successfully claimed their rights to keep their bonus even though the firm tried to recoup them.

PeakOutput

timmywex wrote:

im talking about a bank atm, i remember a case a few months back in my local area where an atm dispensed too much and the person recieving the money does not legally have to give the money back as it is considered they have just taken it out and the person can claim they only wanted a certain amount and the rest was a mistake which is by default, now their's as a result of the banks mistake

not true when the banks atms malfunction the banks work out what was paid out to whom and debit the accounts accordingly i know this for a fact...i am assuming as they are doing it it is legal

i have also been told that if you are overpaid by a company that the only way they can forcibly take the money back is by docking your next wages if you no longer work for them it is their problem it could be a tax thing though which means it may not have been the companies mistake....particularly if this was januarys pay check as i remember hearing that the tax credits etc change in january but the companies wont know about the changes till fubuary and they will make up difference take money from febs paycheck

unles you need a reference from id tell them to shove it in a nice way

whiskeyman

timmywex wrote:

its your money, its there fault they made a mistake and its totally up to you to pay it or not

its like if you are undercharged in a shop, they can ring you and ask for more but you can say no!!
also, if a bank atm gives you too much money by accident, the bank can and will phone to ask for the money back but legally it is your money now

to sum up, its your decision but you can keep the money if you want and they cant do anthing about it

This type of case has come up time and again here, and people like you trump up the above nonsense without any fact. I don't meant that as personal abuse, but if you don't know these kind of things, please don't mention it all, or be sure to say 'I think' or 'as far as I know' if you don't know for sure, because people like the OP will be fed the wrong info on a very important topic.

Check http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/pay-and-employment/pay_slip

Citizens Information Board wrote:

The Payment of Wages Act 1991 gives all employees in Ireland a right to a pay slip which will show the gross wage and details of all deductions. A pay slip is essentially a statement in writing from the employer to the employee that outlines the total pay before tax and all details of any deductions from pay. Your right to a pay slip is set down in Section 4 of this Act. You can view an example of a pay slip here.

Deductions from pay
An employer may not make deductions from your wages unless:

They are required by law, for example, tax (PAYE) and social insurance (PRSI),
They are provided for in the contract of employment, for example occupational pension contributions.
They are made with your written consent, for example, trade union subscriptions
They are to recover an overpayment of wages or expenses
They are required by a court order, for example, an attachment of earnings order in a family law case
They arise due to your being on strike

As they are able to deduct from your salary, it's clear that they are also able to chase any monies outstanding, even if you've left.
If it's a small amount, many companies would write it off. The best you can hope for is a full break down, and then come to an agreement to pay it off over 6 months to a year. I've seen lots of cases like yours being settled this way.

PeakOutput

whiskeyman wrote:

As they are able to deduct from your salary, it's clear that they are also able to chase any monies outstanding, even if you've left.

im not an expert but i would not automatically assume the above from one line there must be a corresponding piece of legislation that legally entitles them to take cash off you but that is only because there have been times iv been overpaid and only realised it after i left and it was never chased up i assumed it was coz they couldnt but maybe they did just write it off

johnnyskeleton

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

[note: this is taken from www.irishstatutebook.ie and is not intended to be legal advice or an authoritive statement of the law. I have emphasised certain sections in bold for illustration purposes only. I do not accept any responsibility for errors or ommissions in the text. I do not purport to interpret these, or any other sections of Irish law. For the avoidance of doubt please see the source, linked above]

In the act(see s. 2):
"dishonestly" means without a claim of right made in good faith;
"property" means money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property

Section 4.—(1) Subject to section 5, a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person does not appropriate property without the consent of its owner if—

(a) the person believes that he or she has the owner's consent, or would have the owner's consent if the owner knew of the appropriation of the property and the circumstances in which it was appropriated, or
(b) (except where the property came to the person as trustee or personal representative) he or she appropriates the property in the belief that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps,
but consent obtained by deception or intimidation is not consent for those purposes.

(3) (a) This subsection applies to a person who in the course of business holds property in trust for, or on behalf of, more than one owner.
(b) Where a person to whom this subsection applies appropriates some of the property so held to his or her own use or benefit, the person shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) but subject to subsection (2), be deemed to have appropriated the property or, as the case may be, a sum representing it without the consent of its owner or owners.
(c) If in any proceedings against a person to whom this subsection applies for theft of some or all of the property so held by him or her it is proved that—
(i) there is a deficiency in the property or a sum representing it, and
(ii) the person has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the whole or any part of the deficiency,
it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, for the purposes of subsection (1) but subject to subsection (2), that the person appropriated, without the consent of its owner or owners, the whole or that part of the deficiency.

(4) If at the trial of a person for theft the court or jury, as the case may be has to consider whether the person believed—

(a) that he or she had not acted dishonestly, or
(b) that the owner of the property concerned had consented or would have consented to its appropriation, or
(c) that the owner could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps,
the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the court or jury shall have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether the person so believed.

(5) In this section—

"appropriates", in relation to property, means usurps or adversely interferes with the proprietary rights of the owner of the property;

"depriving" means temporarily or permanently depriving.

(6) A person guilty of theft is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

Section 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.

(2) A person cannot steal land, or things forming part of land and severed from it by or under his or her directions, except where the person—

(a) being a trustee, personal representative or other person authorised by power of attorney or as liquidator of a company or otherwise to sell or dispose of land owned by another, appropriates the land or anything forming part of it by dealing with it in breach of the confidence reposed in him or her, or
(b) not being in possession of the land, appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed, or after it has been severed, or
(c) being in possession of the land under a tenancy or licence, appropriates the whole or part of any fixture or structure let or licensed to be used with the land.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) "land" does not include incorporeal hereditaments,
"tenancy" means a tenancy for years or any less period and includes an agreement for such a tenancy,
"licence" includes an agreement for a licence,
and
(b) a person who after the expiration of a tenancy or licence remains in possession of land shall be treated as having possession under the tenancy or licence, and "let" and "licensed" shall be construed accordingly.

(4) A person who picks mushrooms or any other fungus growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant (including any shrub or tree) growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what is picked, unless he or she does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose.

(5) Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcase of any such creature, unless it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in course of reducing it into possession.

PeakOutput

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001



(a) the person believes that he or she has the owner's consent, or would have the owner's consent if the owner knew of the appropriation of the property and the circumstances in which it was appropriated, or
(b) (except where the property came to the person as trustee or personal representative) he or she appropriates the property in the belief that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps,
but consent obtained by deception or intimidation is not consent for those purposes.[/B]

ok so to me that means if you are overpaid by a company (not by a ridicolous amount but by something that could reasonably be your salary) you have not stolen it and they cannot get it back as you honestly believed it was yours.

that is very hard english to understand though so could be wrong

johnnyskeleton

PeakOutput wrote:

ok so to me that means if you are overpaid by a company (not by a ridicolous amount but by something that could reasonably be your salary) you have not stolen it and they cannot get it back as you honestly believed it was yours.

that is very hard english to understand though so could be wrong

While I can only give my opinion on a hypothetical situation, I think that if they inform you, and you then retain the property, that falls within the scope of section 4. While what is dishonesty depends on the circumstances of each case, a person should generally act in good faith vis a vis other people's property. I suppose the moral problem, usually posed to children, is what should you do if you find a wallet full of money on the street?

I should say that the reason I posted the sections of the acts was in response to the post that:

timmywex wrote:

the person receiving the money does not legally have to give the money back as it is considered they have just taken it out and the person can claim they only wanted a certain amount and the rest was a mistake which is by default, now theirs as a result of the banks mistake

and I would suggest that dishonestly benefiting from another person's mistake does not give anyone the legal right to the property. I stress that these comments do not reflect the specifics of the Original Poster's query, but should perhaps be borne in mind.

PeakOutput

johnnyskeleton wrote:

While I can only give my opinion on a hypothetical situation, I think that if they inform you, and you then retain the property, that falls within the scope of section 4.

but if you have spent it already under the good faith it was yours???

i dont know but its interesting

johnnyskeleton

PeakOutput wrote:

but if you have spent it already under the good faith it was yours???

i dont know but its interesting

That is the difficulty, and I do not propose to give legal advice on that point.

However, I should stress that if know someone has made a mistake, and you decide "hey, it's my lucky day" or "possession is nine points of the law" or "they've got loads of money, they won't miss a few quid" there may be an element of dishonesty there.

If an ATM starts spewing money about the place it does not give people the right to take that money. If I drop my wallet on your foot, it does not become your wallet. So if someone makes a mistake it does not (as was suggested by timmywex) give you any kind of right to benefit from that mistake.

PeakOutput

yes if we leave aside any other posters to the op this has seemingly come out of the blue so it sounds like this particular thing is quite open ended and if it went to court(highly unlikely) it would be down to persuading a jury wheather or not the op knew they were overpaid or genuinely thought everything was in order