Verbal agreements - enforceable?

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Unlike Teaboy2 I could be bothered to read his lengthy post - I found is so amusing that he suggests that I do not know what a contract of employment is! I just love amateur hour - someone who is clearly not a lawyer but who is quite certain what the law says and what a judge is or is not likely to say in a court case.

I am not going to argue further on this - the OP has confirmed that the assumptions made by Teaboy2, which were never in evidence, are not in fact true. So the OP can consider which advice they feel is more likely to be accurate: advice based on untrue assumptions which says that they will definitely have a case; or the advice based on what the OP has actually told us, which suggests that it could go either way and that there is no clear evidence to say which way a case would go.

Amateur hour - Really! Coming from the lady that failed to spot that they stated there was a verbal agreement that the OP worked for the employer for 18 months, which is not permitted under the employment rights act as such duration of contract must be in the written contract.


Also, I did not say you did not know what an employment contract was, only that you were confused between what terms regarding training courses can be put in the employment contract, and where course specifics are included in the course agreement. This is standard practice for many employers to include terms as to who pays for training courses in employment contracts.

You say am the amateur, i have successfully advised many on employment issues. Yet you failed to spot the error in the employers argument, you failed to note whether the op was between 16-18 and therefore maybe protected under section 63A employment rights act. You Lady, jumped to conclusions based solely on what the op said, without considering the potentially fuller picture.

As for pretending to be a lawyer, well take note of my signature, i make it clear i am not a lawyer, nor do i pretend to be, DO YOU?

Now why such hostility towards me, i do not have to explain myself or reasons for not reading to full thread originally to you or anyone else. Are you hostile because i disagree, because you can handle healthy debate, or is it because i may be right and you just don't like to admit it! As i can tell you now this is not the simple Employers word against Employees as there state about verbal agreement to work for them for 18 months loses them all their creditability


@EXC - That's your opinion, but if i do not have the time to read every post then i simply do not have the time to do so - I am not the only one! If people do not like that then tough ****, they can go cry to mummy for all i care, instead of starting childish immature arguments or making comments of a similar nature.

I am here to help the OP, i am not here to help or please the rest of you that are not in need of help!

If OP follows Eloise advice then the OP will be out of pocket, if OP accepts my help then OP will not be out of pocket, its that simple.

Also Eloise i was on CAG advising on employment matters prior to coming to LB 2 years ago (don't recall seeing you on CAG), so don't act as if your gods gift to employment matters, as no one is, or that you can rule the nest here!

The reason i have not lost 1 employment matter where the person in need stayed the course is simply because i look at all angles, all probabilities and all possible interpretations, grounds of reasonableness, likeliness, fairness which is what a tribunal or court would consider too, as well as looking at all laws.

Hell no one here spotted that they may have been in breach of working time regulation by having the OP have less than 11 hours break between anyone shift. Its all too easy to jump to assumptions and say its there word against the OP's - Sorry but in my book that's no helping, that's i can't be bothered!! I may not have read the whole thread originally when i first posted, but at least i tried to help and have showed willingness by putting out a few things were the employer may be in the wrong.

Its also pretty oblivious why the employer didn't say anything about over-payments for 6-7 months prior to the op leaving, and it would be difficult for them to explain why, if they were over-payments, that they were not noticed for so long especially as accounts are done weekly/monthly. Am an employer myself, its not difficult to tell when someone was not in work one day off the week or when someone has been overpaid that week or month. But as i said, the fact they are saying there was a verbal agreement that the OP serve them for 18 months means any of there arguments and their claim would lose all creditability considering the OP written contract makes no mention of that, from what the OP has stated - In fact am shocked you all missed that very obvious flaw in the employers arguments that the OP stated in her first post.

Also just because an OP seeking help hasn't mentioned something, it doesn't mean it has not happened, hence why its important to get the full story and full facts before giving a definitive answer such as there word against yours!


@Loxxie - If you would like more advice from myself then feel free to PM me, i shall not post on this thread again to avoid escalation of arguments with Eloise. But if you want me help am more than willing to help you.

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Amateur hour - Really! Coming from the lady that failed to spot that they stated there was a verbal agreement that the OP worked for the employer for 18 months, which is not permitted under the employment rights act as such duration of contract must be in the written contract. If you had bothered to read my posts then you would know that I specifically said that training agreements must be in writing and signed. There is no evidence, however, that this is a training agreement. What the terms of any verbal agreement may or not be cannot be deduced - only a court can decide those, as I have said several times.


Also, I did not say you did not know what an employment contract was, only that you were confused between what terms regarding training courses can be put in the employment contract, and where course specifics are included in the course agreement. This is standard practice for many employers to include terms as to who pays for training courses in employment contracts. It would appear to be only standard practice in the cases you know of, since the majority of employers do not do so.

You say am the amateur, i have successfully advised many on employment issues. Yet you failed to spot the error in the employers argument, you failed to note whether the op was between 16-18 and therefore maybe protected under section 63A employment rights act. You Lady, jumped to conclusions based solely on what the op said, without considering the potentially fuller picture. No - you assumed that the OP was between 16 and 18.

As for pretending to be a lawyer, well take note of my signature, i make it clear i am not a lawyer, nor do i pretend to be, DO YOU? I didn't say any such thing, but since you don't read other peoples posts you wouldn't know that.

Now why such hostility towards me, i do not have to explain myself or reasons for not reading to full thread originally to you or anyone else. Are you hostile because i disagree, because you can handle healthy debate, or is it because i may be right and you just don't like to admit it! As i can tell you now this is not the simple Employers word against Employees as there state about verbal agreement to work for them for 18 months loses them all their creditability


@EXC - That's your opinion, but if i do not have the time to read every post then i simply do not have the time to do so - I am not the only one! If people do not like that then tough ****, they can go cry to mummy for all i care, instead of starting childish immature arguments or making comments of a similar nature.

I am here to help the OP, i am not here to help or please the rest of you that are not in need of help!

If OP follows Eloise advice then the OP will be out of pocket, if OP accepts my help then OP will not be out of pocket, its that simple.

Also Eloise i was on CAG advising on employment matters prior to coming to LB 2 years ago (don't recall seeing you on CAG), so don't act as if your gods gift to employment matters, as no one is, or that you can rule the nest here! I was not aware that one had to serve an apprenticeship on a site determined by you?

The reason i have not lost 1 employment matter where the person in need stayed the course is simply because i look at all angles, all probabilities and all possible interpretations, grounds of reasonableness, likeliness, fairness which is what a tribunal or court would consider too, as well as looking at all laws.

Hell no one here spotted that they may have been in breach of working time regulation by having the OP have less than 11 hours break between anyone shift. Its all too easy to jump to assumptions and say its there word against the OP's - Sorry but in my book that's no helping, that's i can't be bothered!! I may not have read the whole thread originally when i first posted, but at least i tried to help and have showed willingness by putting out a few things were the employer may be in the wrong. Hell, as you keep ignoring what was clearly stated the OP was working additional hours by answering the phone for work matters whilst not in work. That was very clearly stated, so why do you persist is saying that this is a breach of regulations that do not apply to this situation?

Its also pretty oblivious why the employer didn't say anything about over-payments for 6-7 months prior to the op leaving, and it would be difficult for them to explain why, if they were over-payments, that they were not noticed for so long especially as accounts are done weekly/monthly. Am an employer myself, its not difficult to tell when someone was not in work one day off the week or when someone has been overpaid that week or month. But as i said, the fact they are saying there was a verbal agreement that the OP serve them for 18 months means any of there arguments and their claim would lose all creditability considering the OP written contract makes no mention of that, from what the OP has stated - In fact am shocked you all missed that very obvious flaw in the employers arguments that the OP stated in her first post. Oddly, employers have been known to miss overpayments for years. So six months wouldn't be at all unusual...

Also just because an OP seeking help hasn't mentioned something, it doesn't mean it has not happened, hence why its important to get the full story and full facts before giving a definitive answer such as there word against yours!


@Loxxie - If you would like more advice from myself then feel free to PM me, i shall not post on this thread again to avoid escalation of arguments with Eloise. But if you want me help am more than willing to help you.

The OP can make there own choices about whether they rely on PM for advice or not. Obviously, since that advice cannot be questioned by anyone else, you don't have any way of telling whether it valid advice or not. I would just point out that in line with the expressed wishes of site admin here, I do not advise people by PM without their agreement, and even then, only to protect personal details, because PM'd advice is not open to challenge. So I won't be offering such a "service" because I am happy to stand my ground and argue the case in public, which it appears not everyone is.

[Loxxie]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

i appreciate all your help.

This is the original letter they sent me that started everything off! I will let everyone make their final comments to this letter and then take the advice

Thank you

Laura

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

But this letter does not say that they are refusing to pay your holiday pay at all! In fact it says quite the opposite - that they are not suggesting that you repay them for the Wedenesdays that you have had off - and that is in writing and therefore is evidence that they are not asking for the money back. And nor does it say that they refuse to pay holiday pay - it says that they need to know what holidays you have taken and then they will pay you. They may express as many opinions as they wish about being disappointed in your stance. They haven't asked for you to repay them for the Wednesdays and in fact have confirmed they aren't asking for that; and they have not refused to pay your holiday pay and are asking for you to confirm what holidays you have taken so that this payment can be calculated.

The obvious answer to the question you asked is to tell them! Which is what the letter asked you to do...

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

The OP can make there own choices about whether they rely on PM for advice or not. Obviously, since that advice cannot be questioned by anyone else, you don't have any way of telling whether it valid advice or not. I would just point out that in line with the expressed wishes of site admin here, I do not advise people by PM without their agreement, and even then, only to protect personal details, because PM'd advice is not open to challenge. So I won't be offering such a "service" because I am happy to stand my ground and argue the case in public, which it appears not everyone is.

Usually i do not give advice via PM, but given the route the thread was going down i offered to do so only so this thread did not become a childish battleground just because you may not have agreed with my advice! Who is to say your advice was correct? As you said, advice should be given in open forum so it may be open to challenge, yet you clearly do not accept your own advice being challenged, evidence of that is in this thread!

i appreciate all your help.

This is the original letter they sent me that started everything off! I will let everyone make their final comments to this letter and then take the advice

Thank you

Laura

Anyway, arguments aside, i agree that they are asking you what days off you had so they can calculate what holiday entitlement you are owed. So i believe the next step would be to tell them how many days holiday you accrued that they owe you. Then await their response before we take things further as they may well pay you what they owe you in full, as they are not claiming back from you the Wednesdays you had off for the training course. Though they still seem to be basing their way of thinking on some alleged verbal agreement with the term that you did 18 months work for them. Whilst you agreed with them to do the course on Wednesdays and they would pay you for Wednesdays as they would a normal working day, you did not know anything about the 18 month term, from what you have stated.

Given that they are not claiming back what they paid you on those Wednesdays, then i suspect they either know they are on thin ground, or that they simply wish to put the issue to bed amicably. So tell them how many days they owe you for accrued holidays and then wait and see what their response is.

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Oh... you are back? I thought you said you wouldn't be?

You are entirely welcome to challenge my advice and if I think you are wrong and making stuff up, then I will challenge you back. Which is what I thought, what I still think, and what I did.

But I am pleased we agree that it was the OP who misread the letter and the employer never asked for the repayment, so answering the employers question should resolve this.

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Oh... you are back? I thought you said you wouldn't be?

You are entirely welcome to challenge my advice and if I think you are wrong and making stuff up, then I will challenge you back. Which is what I thought, what I still think, and what I did.

But I am pleased we agree that it was the OP who misread the letter and the employer never asked for the repayment, so answering the employers question should resolve this.

I haven't made anything up, i simply pointed out things that were missed by yourself, starting with the fact that she was full time not part time worker like you yourself thought, and then followed up with the fact that they may have been in breach of working time regulations based on the OP not having 11 hours rest between shifts and/or working more than the maximum hours when the OP may not have opted out. Maybe me pointing out the things you missed offended you or caused you embarrassment resulting in your need to try and discredit myself. As one thing is for sure, if they had actually been trying to claim back wages from the OP for the days the OP had been on the course, then it sure as hell would not be a simple "your word against theirs" as per what you stated. As anyone with tribunal and court experience would know that they would have to prove their argument, and as they have no creditability in my opinion, then that would be an impossible task for them.

There is also the possibility that the Employer may have been in breach of the protection from harassment act as a result of them calling the OP and texting her to try and get her to come in to work outside of her contracted hours. Off course that depends on the volume of calls, text and messages left.

So lets pretend the Employer was claiming back the wages paid for the wednesdays when the OP was on the course shall we.

Basics of Employers Claim: - OP agreed to a verbal agreed fixed term contract that would have started when the course finished to work a period of 18 months in total after the course finished, in return the claimant agreed to pay the OP full pay for the days she attended the course. OP then resigned in February, we are therefore claiming back what was paid to OP as a result of OP's breach of the verbal agreement.

OP's Defence:

1 - OP did not agree to any verbal agreement that included a term of 18 months work after finishing the course. All that was agreed was that the OP was permitted to complete the course on a Wednesdays instead of Fridays, and that as the employer would benefit from the OP completing the course, they decided to pay the OP for the days in which she attended the course as though it was a normal working day. OP knew nothing about this so called 18 month minimum period of employment after course ended until OP wrote to employer asking for payment of OP's accrued holiday pay, and the employer first mentioned the 18 month verbal agreement in their response.

2 - The OP had a full written contract of employment that contained no such terms, if said term had been agreed as alleged then it should have been in writing and made a core term on the OP's employment contract. The employer did not do this, therefore the payments they made to the OP for the days were OP attended the course, where discretionary, and may not be reclaimed.

OPs Counter Claim:

1 - On many occasions the Employer breached the working time regulations by forcing, pressuring or allowing the OP to work such hours that resulted in the OP having less than 11 hours break between any two shifts, and/or resulted in the OP working more than the maximum hours per week allowed, when OP had not opted out. OP was also only paid basic hourly rate for hours worked on top of her contracted hours. (not sure at this point whether the OP's contract stated if a different rate would be paid for overtime, as it may or may not have)

2 - On many occasions the employer would constantly phone, text or leave messages asking the OP to come into work to work hours that were outside of the OP's contracted hours. The employer even did this when the OP was in attendance of the course. This resulted in the employer being in breach of the working time regulations as described in point 1 above.

3 - The volume of phone calls, texts and messages made to the OP by the Employer on any one day when they wanted the OP to come into work outside her contracted hours may also have amounted to a breach of the protection from harassment act 1997 (OP provides a diary containing approximate dates and times the calls, texts, messages were received) - (Its also possible that the employer was in breach of other laws as a result of the above, especially if they only acted like this towards the OP and not everyone else, and not to mention the fact that it conflicts with the OP's right to privacy and family life and masy have been distressing for the OP, though thats another kettle of fish. Also unless, the employment contract specifically states that the employee should be available to work outside of his/her contract hours, then they should not be contacting her asking her to do so, and doing so may be seen as invasion of employees privacy if they did.)

Off course that's just getting started, as their maybe many more things the OP could throw back at the employer if they had actually been trying to reclaim the wages from her for the Wednesdays. First thing a judge would ask the Employer for would be proof that such an agreement was made and ask why it was not incorporated into the OP's employment contract when it would clearly be a key term of the OP's contract. As you can see, its certainly not as simple as "your word against theirs" as you had put it. Off course, no doubt you will try and twist the above when you argue back, but you can not change the facts, even though its now clear they were never trying to reclaim in the first place, if they had, then the above would be VALID, and if it went to court the employer stands to be on the losing side.

As its now clear the Employer was not actually trying to reclaim the OP's wages but merely asking what days holiday she had or what number of days holiday she had accrued but not taken. Then its obvious to me that either they knew they have no case and they are wanting to resolve the issue quickly, or they are simply just wanting the matter to be finished with ASAP with a resolution that is acceptable to both parties.

I see your completely incapable of letting the argument go, where as i am and was perfectly willing to let the argument go, hence why i offered the OP advice via PM, so the argument would cease. And the only reason i posted here again was directly because of the the letter the OP posted, not because of what you yourself posted, even though i also replied to that. As for you mentioning about the site team in your earlier post, well they know me well enough to know that i do not give advice that would put the OP in a difficult position.

I think overall, that what this thread has proven, is why it is so important to get all the facts and the full story first (a rule i hold highly), before we give quick final advice on the matter without knowing the full picture, such as "its your word against there's". Which to be honest i find to be more in line with the i can not be bothered to really help altitude (i accept i did not read the full thread at first due to time limitations, but i was willing to help, hence my first post and subsequent posts - So don't even think about playing that card again). You wouldn't prepare for a court case without first getting all the facts and the fuller picture, so don't give out advice on legal/employment matters without the facts and fuller picture and without putting into consideration the smaller pieces of info that the OP has given and checking the legal significance of such small pieces of info first and asking for more full and complete details. Granted, it would have helped if the OP had included more details and mentioned what was said in the letter earlier, but nothing we can do about that now. The important thing is she has now posted it and we now know the OP may have misunderstood what the employer was actually wanting.

So how about we put an end to this ridiculous argument? As it is not going to help the OP if her thread is destroyed just because me and you did not see eye to eye!
If you can not find it in yourself to cease the argument and simply agree to disagree, then you will only be proving me right in regards to you not being capable of letting the argument go. You would also be confirming my impression of you (based on this thread only) that you think your advice is gold and anyone that disagrees or who's advice you yourselves do not agree with, is, in your eyes, below you - Which is simply not the case. Also, don't forget that it was you that started this argument, by insulting me after i made valid points based directly on the information available from the OP's first post and based on the valid assumption it was more likely to have been a course paid for by the employer which is most commonly the case, and that no employee that worked part time would work 8am - 10pm in any one day let alone on a regular basis - Both points that you openly attacked and directly followed up with insulting comment towards myself. Hardly the attitude or actions of someone open to constructive debate or open to their opinion/advice being openly challenged is it!

Personally i have no issue with you or the advice i have seen you given on other threads that i have seen so far. But don't try acting like the god of employment issues/law, just because i (or in fact anyone) disagrees with you on a particular issue - As it doesn't do you justice and certainly doesn't win you any friends! In fact, its down right childish to be honest. Now for the Record, I have never claimed or see myself as top dog on employment issues as i know for a fact their are others out there that have been here (and on other forums) and advising people on such issues for longer than i have, they may know more than i, but then they may not. Nor have i ever claimed or do i pretend to be a solicitor or lawyer wannabe, which is something you accused me of being. I make it clear in my signature where my legal knowledge comes from, and that is all i have ever claimed and there's plenty of people here that can confirm that i am an employer as well, just in case you want to start questioning that too. One thing i will say though, is when someone tries to openly discredit me or direct insulting/offensive comments at me, when they do not agree with my advice (and even if they did agree), is that i will respond to them in kind.

Just because i haven't spent much time on this forum the last few months, and you may have had the largest hand in dealing with peoples employment issues since joining in Jan this year, whilst i have been away from the forum. It doesn't mean you own the employment section of the forum as its shared by everyone and anybody that is seeking help/info or willing to give advise, whether that advice is wrong/mistaken or correct. And it sure as hell doesn't give you the right to try and discredit or openly insult of direct offensive comments at anyone who disagrees with you either - So i suggest you think about that, before, if your going to, reply and carry on the argument or not as the forum is more than big enough for both of us, and i am happy to work with you on peoples employment issues. After all, 2 minds are better than one, and the more the merrier! So am offering you my hand, whether you take it and shake hands with me and allow us to put this silly (and now clearly pointless given the content of the OP's Letter, which we both agree on) argument to bed is up to you!

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

OK. Going to take a lesson from you. Didn't even read it. The OP s problem is solved. End of.

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Fine, its up to you if you read my last post or not. No skin of my nose!

Also the issue may not necessarily be solved yet as we don't know what the employers response will be once the OP has informed them of how many days accrued holiday. Though it does seem they are willing to pay, but then they might surprise us further - so it may not yet be the end of the issue. Just saying from experience!

[PlanB]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

op2:

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Lol - I hope that's an extra large portion off popcorn PlanB!

[PlanB]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Lol - I hope that's an extra large portion off popcorn PlanB!

opcorn:

[Loxxie]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Hey

had a reply: -
Dear Laura,


Having had the great relationship with you during your time with us, we believe we treated you very much like a daughter as opposed to just another employee, and in a fatherly fashion, Chris was very mindful that we didn't stand in your way of pursuing a career in law, and happily agreed to you only working a 4 day week, whilst keeping your original contract in place to pay you 5, as it was delivered to us by Mr Palethorpe that your course would last 18 months and that we could expect you to remain employed with us for that period, and of course in that time we would see some benefit from the education you were receiving, therefore it seemed like a feasible business decision, whilst allowing you to further your education.
It naturally came as a great shock to us, to learn that after just 6 months into your course, you tendered your resignation. Obviously, our decision to pay you for your training day, had in the end not turned out to be the feasible business decision we thought it would be.
However, the decision was made, and there was no way we would have sought the repayment of that day not worked over the 6 month period, and we are not seeking it now.
The point we were trying to make when you asked for a days pay owing plus accrued holiday in addition to your final wage, was that we feel we were quits!
You clearly dont feel the same way, which does sadden us, but if thats the case, then thats how it is.
As for your days pay we owe you, if this is owed, given the fact that you mistakenly missed out a days holiday taken, then we will of course pay you.
With regard to any accrued untaken holiday, unfortunately, you appear to have not recorded your holiday entitlement or holiday taken on the back office, where everyone elses holiday is recorded, and we therefore have no record of what holiday you have or have not taken. I appreciate you may have given Mr Cooke a list of the days you say you have taken, but i'm afraid I cannot pay out money based on a list an employee gives us.
I cannot imagine why you would not have recorded your own holidays as it was your job to record all employees holiday entitlement etc.,
Under the circumstances, as before, we are happy to pay any monies owed regarding the day you say is missing if this is still the case, but we cannot pay for unrecorded holiday days.


Surely it is not my responsibility to record my own holiday as I could add any days!!


Thoughts!

Laura

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

OK. Did you record your leave? You must have some record. They can't find there records that is their problem. Write back a letter before action giving them 28 days to pay the full amount owed, or you will begin legal action without further notice. If they don't pay up, submit a tribunal claim.

[Loxxie]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Hi

i have my leave recorded which I sent to them - and now they are stating it was my responsibility to record it. Yes I recorded my teams but I submitted all my holiday requests to with the director or accounts manager - the two people I was responsible to. Seems ironic that I record my own holiday - I could have not put days down and all sorts!