Hi, I'm just starting to get a handle on my finances after a sudden change of circumstances. I'm in around £8,000 of unsecured debt to various loans/overdrafts/credit cards/catalogues, and now my landlord (I'm a leaseholder) as such saddled me with an additional £2,500 debt which has tipped me over the edge. I'm in the process of opening a new Current Account and Saving Account with a Building Society and am now trying to rework my SoA so I can comfortably afford to repay these debts but also not have to get into further debt when the excrement next hits the fan. Up till now I've budget quiet tightly to keep up with at least minimum payments but when the car breaks, as it did over Christmas, I end up loading up the credit cards again and am back to square one. So I want to budget properly this time and save a little for such occurrences. I've been searching around both this site and various others (many linked to from here) and reading a lot of quality information, but I can't find the answer to one specific question...Just what is regarded to be the industry accepted allowances in a SoA? How much is reasonable for things like Sky TV, Hobbies or Holidays? What is acceptable to save for, like a new car in 4 years time, and what would be taking the proverbial? I want to make sure the figures I use are both realistic and acceptable. Thanks in advance for any advice offered.

I will try and be brief. In August 2010 a number of us had some deductions made from our salaries only for a compensating amount to be paid back within the same pay statement. Shortly afterwards, we all received letters alleging overpayments of allowances stretching back many years. Many thousands of £ are involved. The letters were not specific regarding which of 3 criteria were allegedly not being satisfied in order to justify payment of the allowance. The allowances were also stopped being paid immediately. We all responded in a similar way, refuting the allegations and asking for further details to which we received no responses. I should state here that none of the employees ever submitted a formal written claim for this allowance. Over the years the process has changed a number of times, but very broadly the Line manager submitted a case for payment of the allowance. In early December 2010, having not heard anything about our refuted allegation and worried that we may miss any chances of airing grievances over the issue itself and the handling of it we raised the appropriate forms, sent to HR, and received acknowledgements back within days. The grievance procedure states that we should be offered interviews by the investigating officer within 2 weeks of receipt. The employer is being very quiet about all this and we think are stalling. We think this may all go back to one single case which was submitted to the pay office many years ago. At that time the criteria was a little ambiguous. It would appear that some correspondence took place between the pay office and a senior line manager, and it was agreed that the allowance should be paid. We suspect other subsequent cases relied upon that precedent. In my own case, many years ago I was told by my Line manager some good news and bad news. The good news was that I was going to receive the allowance; the bad news was that it was not going to be backdated! My view is that these alleged overpayments cannot be recovered on the basis of a review of the criteria and then applied retrospectively. These payments were not mistakes of fact but, a mistake of judgement or interpretation of the criteria. It seems unfair that such alleged overpayments can be recovered. But is the recovery unfair in legal terms? What can we do now if the employer is dragging his heels over all this? Some of us cannot take the stress of all this as much as the others with the threat of having to pay back many thousands of pounds. Hopefully, I have included only the most relevant of facts and tried to be as objective as possible. I have omitted much of the emotional details of the responses made, and the whole questioning of the interpretation of the criteria and seeking evidence of criteria being the same over the years. All of this sort of thing was just knee-jerk defensive posturing at the time of the refuted statements; understandable at the time but not necessary to dwell on here. Does anyone agree that these overpayments have to be repaid in accordance with the law? If so, what is a reasonable amount and over what period? Suffice to say we don't think we should pay any back. All interest, advice and comments warmly thanked for in advance.