You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Left my former employer in mid November, so was paid a reduced amount on 27th November (half a months pay). Just checked my bank statement (to confirm my new employer is paying me) and have seen that the old place paid me the same reduced amount on 29th December as they did in November.
Assuming they don't pay me again this month (wouldn't put it past their incompetent accountant) what do I do? Pay them back, wait till they claim it back, or stick it in a savings account for x years until it's lawfully mine??
EDIT: former employer was in the bike business, but didn't mean to put this in the wrong forum!
Just pay it back. They can request it back so might as well just get it over and done with.
I wouldn't have posted on the Internet about it if I had any mention of keeping it.
Happened to me once, I kept it but then I did leave under a cloud.
Why would you keep it? It's not yours.
An administration error on their part which will soon be found out.
Just call them and let them know.
I'd keep it tucked away - call me dishonest, but I'm honest to admit I would.
Either they'll ask for it reasonably soon, or at the end of the financial year when they sign off the PAYE for the year or no later then 10 months after their next year-end when they file their accounts.
If they don't find it by then they never will, or frankly it'll be more trouble than its worth - and you can never underestimate the 'Howard Smith' effect - whereby admitting to a mistake and fixing it is less palettable than pretending it never happened and hoping no one else notices. 😉
It happened to an old housemate of mine a few years back, he just put it in a savings account every month, then when they asked for it back after about a year, he arranged to pay it back at so much a month. He's probably still paying them back now.
Not your month in hand?
Definitely not- didn't leave on good terms, no real notice period (I didn't want to leave either which makes me more confused!)
Leave it where it is, they will probably attpt to reclaim via DD when they twig, but after their accounting year the chances of them trying to get it reduce
Not giving it back is technically theft, ok 🙂
Coke?
Hookers?
Or give back to a childrens charity by buying loads of bongo mags and bring back hedge porn.
Keep hold of it but do not spend it. If they ask for it (which they probably will) pay it back or you'll end up in court.
I'd say you could argue that you thought 1 or 2 payments were owed to you but anymore and you are on dodgy grounds.
Have a look at the following legislation. It should help you make up your mind.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dishonestly_retaining_a_wrongful_credit/
If they can link you to this thread then you could be looking at porridge
If you want to keep it, then don't check your account as then you can plead ignorance. Everytime you check there is a record which will prove you were aware and did nothing about it.
Honesty is always the best policy. Don't keep it and wait for a knock on the door!
Why not keep it? You'll get no thanks off incompetent people for telling them how crap they are.
They should be getting paid to do things right, it's not your job to help them.
Something similar happened to a friend of mine and she is now stuck in a very difficult position of trying to pay £3k back that she spent. I'd put it aside as a good chance they'll ask for it back.
Why not keep it?
Because it's theft.
"Property is theft!"
Keep it, shut up about it, put it in a savings account and leave it alone
IIRC, They've got six years to ask for it back.
the employer will claim it back...as above put it in a savings account and agree to pay back so much per month, some may ask for it all back in oine lump
Pay it back. It isn't your money.
Unsolicited gift rather than theft shirley?
A gift is someone knowingly giving something to someone.
Is this the case here? I don't think so.
OP, do the right thing.
stick it in a savings account till the tax year is up.
Do the right thing. Give it to homeless people.
It's not theft if someone gives you it, you can argue about the morality of keeping it, aye. But it's not theft.Drac - Moderator
Why not keep it?
Because it's theft.
Its not his it was given incorrectly he knows he is not entitled to it so to keep it [ or try to ] would be theft.
The money is not their property as any court would clearly agree, not least because they have admitted it in the OP.
If they keep it they can only do so via theft but it is highly unlikely they will be done for it and will only need to pay it back
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
You really have to be some kind of arsehole to believe that the money can be kept.
That's my moral stance on the matter.
It's not theft if someone gives you it, you can argue about the morality of keeping it, aye. But it's not theft.
Theft by finding
I think the company must be some kind of arsehole to put the op in this position.
I have no sympathy for them. Like I said they pay someone a good salary NOT to make mistakes like that.
As for theft I don't think the police would have any interest in pursuing that at all, they will say it's a 'civil matter'. It happened to someone I know a few years back, he bought a nice carbon trek with his 'gift'.
I'd echo the "Stick it in a savings account" advice above; I used to work for a large company where communication was more than a little poor when it came to management notifying Payroll that staff had left, to the point that one chap was paid for 6 months between him leaving and Payroll being told he'd left. The company did chase overpayments, not always immediately, and if someone who had been overpaid and not yet repaid it came back to work, it was taken off their salary when they rejoined... A lot of the overpayments, regardless of the total amount, were being paid back at £5/month though, even when the employee had been earning £1500+ after tax with us.
You really have to be some kind of arsehole to believe that the money can be kept.
That's my moral stance on the matter.
Replace jerk with arsehole.
Questions -
did they make you feel a valued employee?
Did you enjoy working there?
will they miss it?
If the answer is no to all of these then xxxx em and put it in a savings account. And for what its worth its not theft, morally dubious perhaps, but certainly not a crime
right ye are mother teresa! 😆iolo - Member
You really have to be some kind of arsehole to believe that the money can be kept.
That's my moral stance on the matter.
It is a criminal offence so up to you really. S.24 of the Theft Act - Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit
It's not your money is it.
It is a criminal offence so up to you really. S.24 of the Theft Act - Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit
Really?
Did you look at the definition of what amounts to a 'wrongful' credit under para 2A?
Once he knows that the money he has been paid isn't his and he then either spends it or transfers it then he comits theft as he has dishonestly appropriated the money. The money doesn't have to be stolen in the first place.
So, nothing to do with the S24 offence of retaining a 'wrongful' credit then?
I can't believe how often this comes up.
Is the money yours?
No. Give it back.
Not quite as simple as that.
If the company were asshats, then it should be kept and considered 'Asshat Tax'.
Not quite as simple as that.
I guess right and wrong is a fairly difficult concept for some people.
Did you look at the definition of what amounts to a 'wrongful' credit under para 2A?
That's not a prescriptive definition of a wrongful credit. That section was added so that the offence thereafter included the credits listed [u]in addition[/u] to what it originally referred to, i.e. money credited by mistake.
That is to say, if you transferred money to my account that you had stolen, and I knew you had stolen it, I commit an offence if I keep it, because money obtained by theft is now, since 2A was inserted, a wrongful credit, despite you giving it to me on purpose rather than by mistake.
I was overpaid on my final pay when I left my last job. I told them, then they wrote to me asking for £XX back. For a laugh, I told them their figures were wrong and offered about half that, in full settlement. They went for it ! I guess they couldn't be bothered arguing and were happy to get some back. Worth a try !
Just a thought but wont you be wanting a P45 for your next job. if the old job is still paying you then you are still employed and bound by their T&C's when you joined.
I suspect if you get another job and still paid by the old one your tax will get messed up.
Just let them know the error and arrange to pay it back, why have the bother of it on your mind and conscience.
The other point to consider is the future.
Should you one day need them for a reference I'm sure they'll want to give one to the guy who wouldn't give them their money back.
Ninfan - not quite sure why you are trying to pick an argument. It's a criminal offence. You can't keep something you know doesnt belong to you. It's not a difficult concept to follow. You've misread the legislation because it's badly written. Please see the post above
thegreatape - Member
That's not a prescriptive definition of a wrongful credit. That section was added so that the offence thereafter included the credits listed in addition to what it originally referred to, i.e. money credited by mistake.
That is to say, if you transferred money to my account that you had stolen, and I knew you had stolen it, I commit an offence if I keep it, because money obtained by theft is now, since 2A was inserted, a wrongful credit, despite you giving it to me on purpose rather than by mistake.
I echo the comments above re sticking it in a savings account then you'll have it there if and when they ask for it back but id be concerned about how HMRC will respond to you having recieved 2 lots of pay because at least of of those will not be entitled to the tax free allowance.
Call them Monday and pay it back.
Or are you one of these people who finds a dropped wallet on the street, pockets the cash and bins the rest.?After all, it's in your possession.
Don't panic, I will be raising the issue with them on Monday. I'm still astounded at the incompetence of a company which only employs 20-30 staff, yet can afford to be losing so much money each month (not that my wages were ever huge).
I never intended to keep the money, so the pitchforks can be put down. Interesting to see the split of opinion is so strong though- love the idea of an asshat tax, but hate the idea of stealing. The analogy if finding money in the street is pretty close I think, especially as I have seen the person drop it.
My digs were not meant at you by the way.
Some on this thread have shown their true characters.
You've misread the legislation because [s]it's badly written.[/s]
Because he wanted to as he loves an argument.
Better not say what I think about Nine Inch Nails then
Clearly they have given you this money to get a new bike. It's only right that you should start looking!
Drac, if I'd just wanted an argument (are you here for the full half hour?) I would have gone on to point him to [url= http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc243_Legislating_the_Criminal_Code_Offences_of_Dishonesty.pdf ] part Vi [/url]in the Law Commission document that explains why the offence he pointed us to only refers to money initially obtained through dishonesty or criminal purposes, rather than overpaid wages, however as it happens, I had decided to leave him bathing in the bliss of his own supine ignorance...
Very gracious of you that ninfan
Whilst bathing in your own glory why not google levels of competencies and see if you can work out which stage you are at 😉
Regardless of what the law may or may not say, what's the honest thing to do? Do it.
Drac, if I'd just wanted an argument (are you here for the full half hour?) I would have gone on to point him to part Vi in the Law Commission document that explains why the offence he pointed us to only refers to money initially obtained through dishonesty or criminal purposes, rather than overpaid wages, however as it happens, I had decided to leave him bathing in the bliss of his own supine ignorance...
Again, I'm afraid you have misunderstood. The document you refer to here is an explanation of why there was a need to create an equivalent offence to handling stolen goods for money that has been stolen (or obtained by another form of dishonesty). This, as your link explains very well, was due to the wording of the original handling stolen goods offence not really being suitable for circumstances when a person had [i]knowingly[/i] participated in receiving a credit of money obtained by dishonesty. As a result, 2A was added to the retaining a wrongful credit offence. This happened in or after 2006, whenever the Fraud Act 2006 came into effect.
It ADDS more circumstances that are covered by the original offence, it does not DEFINE the type of credit that the original offence of dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit covers (which has always included the situation where someone [i]innocently[/i] receives a wrongful credit, and subsequently acts dishonestly by retaining it).
If the addition of section 2A in (or after) 2006 did what you think it has done, the law would effectively be saying this - for 38 years it was a crime to knowingly keep money that had been put into your bank account by mistake. That's not a crime any more.
(You can see from the footnotes on this link http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A that 2A came into effect in 2007).
All the morally empty scumbags outing themselves on this thread. Bookmarked so I know who not to buy or sell from in the future. No doubt they'd condemn bike theft till the cows come home but support this kind of theft.
OP put it this way, if they'd underpaid you, you would be up in arms. This stuff works both ways. Pay it back immediately. You may have left on bad terms, this will only make it worse. In a couple of years time if you need a reference would you like your old employer to bring this up?
Great ape
A 'wrongful' credit is only 'wrongful' if it originates from the offences listed in s24a, there is no other definition of wrongful, you cannot commit the offence of retaining a credit unless it originates from a 'wrongful' source within the meaning of the act, that's why its placed under S24, stolen goods.
Ninfan,
Please do us all a favour and shut up.
Great apeA 'wrongful' credit is only 'wrongful' if it originates from the offences listed in s24a, there is no other definition of wrongful, you cannot commit the offence of retaining a credit unless it originates from a 'wrongful' source within the meaning of the act, that's why its placed under S24, stolen goods.
So what did the offence involve between 1968 and 2007, because it was only in 2007 that
A credit to an account is wrongful to the extent that it derives from—
(a)theft;
(b)blackmail;
(c)fraud (contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006); or
(d)stolen goods.]
was inserted into the legislation.
The absence of any other definition is irrelevant - this is common in countless other pieces of legislation, and where terms are not specifically defined they are simply interpreted using their normal everyday meaning.
Yes, but the entire offence of 'retaining a wrongful credit' 24a was only introduced in 1996
24a2 was inserted at the same time as 24a3 and 24a4 were removed in 2006
If you look at the entirety of 24a you will see it in context
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/62/section/2
If the money is paid to him by mistake, then it's nothing to do with s24 'wrongful credit', you're back up in section 5(4) with all the attendant caveats of dishonesty, there's no positive duty to return it like there is with s24, it's entirely a civil issue unless and until you refuse to return it if asked, otherwise thousands of people would have been prosecuted rather than having to pay it back at £x per week.
Every village needs one
Fair point re 1996, but if you look at your link carefully the sentence reads 'A credit to an account is [b]also[/b] wrongful to the extent...'
So, what circumstances are those specific criteria in addition to?
How come this lady was convicted just last year, when none of them applied to her case - she just woke up one day and the money was there as a result of an error. She kept it and was convicted.
I'm going ice skating with the kids now, I'll come back later. I hope 😐
Jesus, chill out! Just wait for them to ask for it back and when they do, give it back. It's not a very complex situation.
Whatever the legal issues I would suggest you should act morally and return the money. You can dance around the legal issues all you like but their just excuses for failing to do the right thing. It takes more courage to do the right thing.
If the accountant needs a kick up the arse, pay it back, but use the MD/FD as an initial point of contact.
You'd be better letting them know rather than just paying back the cash you've received.
As you've said it is pay they've given you, they'll have deducted tax, NI etc which could have a knock on effect on what you pay in tax over the year, depending on your rest of year earnings. Once you've made them aware, insist that they correct your PAYE / NI position before handing it back.
They say that ultimately the only difference between someone who commits a crime and someone who does not is the ability to rationalise it.
Every thief doing time in jail has a way of rationalising it:
eg.
"They have everything and I have nothing, - I gotta do what I gotta do"
"They have insurance anywaym so its no loss to them"
"They can easily afford it, its nothing to them"
"They left they door open, can't believe their stupidity, I'm teaching them a valuable lesson"
"I have an addiction problem, I can't help it"
I know this from experience, - every single one of them has a way of rationalising their actions.
Ask yourself, - are you just trying to find ways to rationalise what you know is wrong at the end of the day?
Ask yourself, - are you just trying to find ways to rationalise what you know is wrong at the end of the day?
You must have missed the bit where he said he never intended to keep it, and would be letting them know about it on Monday.
Can't be bothered with the legal analysis for no pay on a Sunday but in any event you can't keep the cash it is not yours as soon as you move it to another account or withdraw it you appropriate it . cos you know it ain't yours you are being dishonest so it either boils down to theft wrongful credit or fraud dependent on precise circumstances . The civil wait till asked then pay by instalments is also stupidly risky you owe me money I'm going for immediate payment plus costs and interest . I'll garnishee your bank and wage and send the bailiffs for hour TV and bike.
The op knows all this and is clearly honest.
To be fair ninfan, I can see where you're coming from with this.
I'm starting from the position of knowing that people have been (and therefore can be) convicted of DRAWC in circumstances where the credit itself was nothing more than an error, with no dishonesty by any person. The link to the Lichfield woman's conviction is proof of that.
That said, the Law Commission paper you linked does suggest that the intention of that law was to deal with people who were willingly accepting or keeping credits obtained dishonestly by someone else.
So that begs the question, if that was indeed the intention then how come people have been convicted when there was no dishonesty involved in the money appearing in their account?
The answer to that may be that prosecutors have successfully argued at court that these circumstances still amount to the offence, that (one assumes and hopes) defence lawyers have argued to the contrary, and the court have convicted. If that is the case (and convictions indicate that it is), and it has not been overruled by a higher court, then currently the law is that these circumstances do amount to the offence.
The alternative is that it was always meant to include these circumstances.
I had this a while back with a huge health firm I started working for then sacked it off as it was not for me.
I handed in my notice officially and left first month went by suddenly I've been paid cool I thought they paid me a full month pay for 2 weeks training month 2 came and another wage went in.
Now at the time I'd started another very low paid job and was tempted to say nothing as I was really struggling.
BUT I'm and honest bloke (too honest some would say) so wrote to them and pointed out the error the next letter I got was a demand for the 6 weeks pay.
I wrote back saying without me they could have carrying on paying me indefinably how about 4 weeks back.
They agreed so I paid back the 4 weeks but kept the two 😀
They agreed so I paid back the 4 weeks but kept the two
Should have left it 6 years (and kept 2 😉 )
Thegreatape I have not put a great deal of thought into this but the Lichfield woman may well have been done on the movements into other accounts after the credit was received . which would give either retaining wrongful credit or theft or both.
Yes, that may well be right - all but one of the cases I've found make mention of a proportion of the funds received in error being subsequently transferred, so perhaps that is the point at which this particular offence is complete. The case that makes no mention of such a transfer (minutes of a post conviction NHS misconduct hearing) simply states she received it in error and spent it, it doesn't specify how.
I'm inclined to now agree with ninfans reasoning regarding the specifics of this particular offence, although it clearly remains the case that if you keep money that's not yours you're liable to get done for it - exactly what you get done for being determined by what you do with that money.
Cheers great ape, I'm fairly sure it's covered by 5(4), and as I said that comes with all the attendant 'dishonestly' caveats (I suspect it only becomes dishonest at the point you decide to keep it?). I seem to remember an old case with an overpaid police officer who was cleared of it as they hadn't moved it or spent it, and the court of appeal said that it could be a technical theft if the other parts were fulfilled, but it should be dealt with as a civil rather than criminal issue.
No worries, you got me thinking about it and questioning a couple of assumptions I had not had cause to question before! I was working backwards from cases where convictions for DRAWC had come about following an entirely innocent receipt of funds, but in hindsight perhaps over simplified it.
The issue with 5(4) might be - ? - whether a credit, not being a tangible 'thing', counts as property - an issue the chaps in your Law Commission link were I think trying to work around - but certainly, yes, you'd only be guilty once you'd decided to keep it rather than try to return it.