Overpayment of wages

They say that they invoiced the agency twice.

I knew only that I couldn't reconcile the payslip I'd received, it was unintelligible.

Although unable to recognise the amount my bank was credited, with back pay owing to me and expense claims still outstanding I had no reason to think there'd been any error.

Sorry about that. The link worked for me 5 minutes ago but Sunday is a natural time for maintenance so it may have been intermittent. Perhaps you could try again in the morning?

If the agency had been invoiced twice I take it the overpayment is double what you were expecting. Is this correct? I certainly would know if I was paid twice! Your argument about unable to recognise the amount the bank was credited with back pay and expenses owing etc etc is hardly credible. I can see now why they are threatening to bring in debt collectors.

You may well be right on NICs although I fail to see how employer contributions could enrich an employee (since they convey no entitlement to benefits) and the employee contributions may also have conveyed no marginal, additional benefit if the employee had enough other earnings to qualify (and is contracted out).

As for PAYE, it is a long time since I had to grapple with the law and practice on that, and the relevant bit of HMRC's PAYE manual (PAYE72085) is not publicly available. But I urged contact as ISTR it is not an easy path to consistent figures for the employer's and employee's returns.

"Robin" wrote in news:0H8Vi.38734$c_ snipped-for-privacy@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

True, but don't forget the undue enrichment of being pushed over the Upper Earnings Limit.

I believe you have to have suffered a demonstrable loss to sue, I'm not sure if that is the same as defamation.

AIUI once you inform the credit agency that the information is incorrect they would then be liable. In my case they removed the offending item.

I find it particularly annoying that companies register fraudulent transactions even after they are informed that the transactions were fraudulent. Apparently they are under no obligation to report to or check with the police.

He is claiming they have not sent him a correct breakdown of what he has been paid for and what the mistake was.

I believe it is reasonable to keep the money until he receives a satisfactory (to a reasonable person) account breakdown. AIUI one of the specific reasons to utilise an Umbrella company is because they do these calculations for you.

>

Quite so.

Indeed, and if they make a botch of it, it is reasonable that they should forfeit part of their fee.

I believe that I have overpaid you by £1000, Bystander. Having now been supplied with exactly the same evidence regarding the authenticity of the alleged overpayment as the OP supplied, you must surely now come to the same conclusion that the cash is not yours, and give it back to me.

Can I assume that you use the same lack of evidence in order to decide that the prosecution case is proven in your Court?

Cynic wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

That's strange I always thought that he worked for the defence. Actually I suspect that like me he has the odd outburst on here as way of part self therapy after dealing objectively, politely and with reserve with all the detritus of the previous day regardless of initial appearance.

Bystander is a magistrate. Perhaps you believe that most magistrates work for the defence, but ITYF that the majority of people believe the exact opposite.

As for the rest - if a person *chooses* to take a job cleaning out sewerage pipes, I have no sympathy when they complain about how much shit they have to deal with at work, nor do I have any respect for them when they start treating the whole World as if it was the same as the inside of the sewerage pipes they have chosen to spend most of their waking hours.

Cynic wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Or perhaps I was just taking the Micky. Feeling a little tetchey tonight?

If a newspaper publishes defamatory material, you sue the newspaper, not the reporter or correspondent who supplied the information.

OK, so you sue the publisher, not the printer, nor the shop/library which actually makes the newspaper available to buy/borrow, i.e. read.

The question is who, in the context of creditworthiness information, is the "publisher". Is the credit reference agency not more like a "reference library" which merely houses the information "published" by the creditors?

This is a fallacious argument. The credit reference agency publishes the information in that it makes it available to anyone prepared to pay for it. Credit reference agencies should stick to things proven in court e.g. County Court Judgments. They should not accept the word of creditors unless it has been fully checked out.

If I send an article to a newspaper which is defamatory of a third party, the newspaper will check out its veracity before publishing it. Credit reference agencies should do the same.

It is a question, not an argument. :-)

*That* is a fallacious argument, because the same could be said of a bookshop: It "publishes" information in that it makes books (which might contain defamatory material) available to anyone prepared to pay for it.

I think that's going too far. Should newspapers stick to things proven in court?

It seems far more pragmatic and reasonable that the reference agencies should be viewed as reference libraries, and that responsibility for the accuracy of the information should lie with those who provided it to them.

In general it's impossible to obtain independent verification of a debt the existence (or status in terms of being overdue) of which is usually known to only two parties, i.e. the lender and borrower, if one of those parties denies what the other alleges.

ITYF that bookshops and libraries can indeed be successfully sued for continuing to disseminate libelous publications after having been made aware of the libel. ISTR that WH Smith withdrew all of a certain publication from its shelves after being threatened with such a lawsuit.

I called the Churchill insurance company to renew my vehicle policy.

Having confirmed my details, the operator told me my credit card information wasn't required as an automated charge to my account was already in progress.

I asked her how so. I hadn't authorised any such arrangement.

After a then long consultation with her supervisor, she returned and told me "an error had been made" at the time my renewal notice was issued.

Clearly a decision was made to charge my account without my consent and I can't understand that as otther than fraud and identity theft.

How is it so easy for for them to access my money and try it on like