Company Car- left employment now being chased for upgrade costs...

[Jasper1965]

And one more question for the night.

 

When you resigned, did you just not turn up for work or otherwise breach your contract of employment or did you submit formal notice in accordance with your "Contract of employment"?

 

Just trying to establish exactly where the breach occured or in exactly what way you failed to fulfil your obligations under said contract.

[m2000]

And one more question for the night.

 

When you resigned, did you just not turn up for work or otherwise breach your contract of employment or did you submit formal notice in accordance with your "Contract of employment"?

 

Just trying to establish exactly where the breach occured or in exactly what way you failed to fulfil your obligations under said contract.

 

Mornign Jasper,

 

I followed the correct procedures, arranged a face to face meeting with my Manager and handed my notice in. I also worked my notice and carried out a proper and thorough 'hand over' of my work load to other people. There were no hard feelings/problems with this process.

 

It is the HR department that have since started the court process, and its been dragging out for ages now!

 

Thanks again

M2000

[Jasper1965]

Thank you.

 

So we can safely say that there was no actual breach of contract or any failure to perform such a contract on your part.

 

Not quite sure how they see fit to present this as a liquidated damages claim then.

[Kraken1]

I agree with some of what Jasper says, but don't agree with post 228 - this could be a breach of contract.

 

Neither do I agree with:

 

"4) The oppo counsel are correct in stating that as a LD claim no mitigation etc or proof of damages need be provided up to a point. Their argument falls apart when you reference part 2 above and see that no sum was declared payable as should be the case. Obviously had the clause read "the sum of £x is payable" then there's nothing to argue over so no need for such disclosure. The clause did not specify a sum or reasonable extimate and that alone is probably fatal to their LD claim."

 

Liquidated damages don't need to specify the actual sum, just how it will be calculated.

[Mossycat]

I'm struggling to understand the argument here

 

The OP opted for a more expensive car, the consequence of that was that it cost his employer more money than a standard car. The employer agreed to pay these costs as long as the OP remained an employee, the employee agreed that if they left within a given timescale then he would pay the difference in cost between the standard car and the more expensive car. A contract was duly agreed and entered into.

 

The employee left within that given timescale, ie specific performance was not completed, so the employer seeks to enforce the contract and asks the OP to comply with the terms of it.

 

I really don't see the OP has an argument that would stand up in Court.

 

Mossy

[Jasper1965]

Sadly for the Op I now must agree with both Mossycat and Kraken.

[Kraken1]

there is an argument - an action for breach of contract only succeeds where a loss has been incurred as a result of the breach of contract. In this case the claimants have confirmed that there is no loss. They are arguing that they can claim the costs because the relevant clause was a liquidated damages clause. This means that the claimant does not need to prove a loss; the losses are basically agreed in advance.

 

The doozy is that these clauses are only valid in certain circumstances. this might be one of them, but if I were the claimants solicitors I would be telling the claimant that it has only a 50% chance of standing up. Hence the reason they are willing to agree a fairly rubbish settlement.

[Mossycat]

there is an argument - an action for breach of contract only succeeds where a loss has been incurred as a result of the breach of contract. In this case the claimants have confirmed that there is no loss. They are arguing that they can claim the costs because the relevant clause was a liquidated damages clause. This means that the claimant does not need to prove a loss; the losses are basically agreed in advance.

 

The doozy is that these clauses are only valid in certain circumstances. this might be one of them, but if I were the claimants solicitors I would be telling the claimant that it has only a 50% chance of standing up. Hence the reason they are willing to agree a fairly rubbish settlement.

 

I'd love it if you are correct with that, personally I think the OP's ex employers are being a bit unreasonable here, given that they then gave the car to the new employee.

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment.

 

If the employer argues that had the OP opted for a standard car and then left within the given timescale they would have been able to pass the standard car on to the next employee (as they have done with the more expensive one), but the cost to the Company would have been less (ie a lower monthly payment) and the only reason they have the higher monthly payment is because of the OP choosing the more expensive car, then surely they can show a quantifiable cost ?????

 

Mossy

[Kraken1]

As I understand it someone else ordered the same upgrade and the motor was just passed to them.

[Mossycat]

As I understand it someone else ordered the same upgrade and the motor was just passed to them.

 

Then in that case the upgrade costs should now fall to the new employee (or whoever got the car), and the same contractual conditions should be attached to it.

 

If the OP can show that the new user of the car would have ordered the same options and it would therefore have cost the Company the same money then they have suffered no financial loss.

 

However, if the new user states that they simply accepted what was offered to them, then the Company still has an argument.

 

The best the OP can do is argue it out in Court, having read the settlement offered by the solicitors I really didn't like the clause that ......

 

In the event of default by the Defendant the Claimant shall be at liberty to enter Judgment Forthwith for the amount outstanding at that time by submitting to the Court a Request for Judgment in the form appropriate at that time.

 

That to me appears to suggest that if the OP defaults then they get judgement automatically.

 

 

Mossy

[m2000]

Hello All,

 

Many thanks to all of you who have helped with this. Especially Kraken1, Mossycat and Jasper, you have all been fantastic!

 

I have returned the Consent Order to the Claimants Solicitor. I have also sent them my last 3 payslips and P60 for last tax year.

 

The only thing I think they may do is try and get a bit more each month, as I my net pay is about £43 more each month than I guessed on my SOA... BUT the consent order which I signed says agreed sum of £50 per month, so will have to see!

 

Thanks once again to you all!

[Mossycat]

Just a thought but have you thought about or tried contacting a solicitor who specialises in employment law, some offer a 30 minute free consultation.

 

I'm only asking because it just seems so unfair what your ex-employer is trying to force you to pay, and I'm hoping that maybe a specialist in this area might pick up on something that this forum hasn't suggested.

 

Mossy

[m2000]

Hi Mossycat,

 

Thanks for the message- I have tried a local employment specialist, but they would only deal with me if I paid or had legal cover via my house insurance (which I don't )

 

Emabaressingly ,my financial situation is a little precarious, so I simply don't have enough disposable income to pay for my own lawyer.

 

Thanks again though, I have been lucky to recieve all your help.

[honeybee13]

Hi there. Have we already covered whether you have legal cover on your household insurance, say? I don't remember offhand.

 

HB x