Accidentally Doubled Salary

[Venture]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193009/Barclays-bank-worker-given-double-pay-error-getting-it.html


It seems that this Barclays Bank employee has come up smelling of roses after a dispute with her employer about her salary being doubled accidentally. To have a jump in wages from £9500 to £17,000 seems unbelievable for anyone to accept without query. She has won her case against her employer and won't have to pay back the £20,000 overpayment.

Now I'm sure that if I had extra cash paid into my bank account by Barclays that I'd be made to pay it back and would probably be prosecuted for supposedly knowing that it was happening and doing nothing about it.

Do you think as a bank employee that she just accepted the increase without query when she signed the contract because she genuinely thought this was what she was entitled to or did she know all along there had been a mistake and went along with it? She only works part-time so there are bound to be others in the same job as her who weren't being paid that amount. Dosen't seem that there was any discussion on wage comparison with fellow workers at the time which is what most of us would have done I think.

Well she's won her case now whether we believe her or not with the added bonus of the tribunal judge stating that she should continue to be paid the £17.000 salary. Alright for some.;)

Would you have done, queried it or accepted it?

[weeboyagee]

From what I can see in that article, she is perfectly entitled to keep her salary. Everything that the bank has done in the past 3 years has created a practice that in history, to my mind, would constitute her contract of employment or since it is such a long period (3 years) since the issue of any contract with a lesser amount, would be deemed to have replaced that contract.

For an organisation such as Barclays not to have procedures in place that would stop this happening is a disgrace. Institutions that don't have such critical management over their operations deserve to have this happening to them every now and then to ensure they get their house in order. There is nothing in the article that would not lead me to believe that the lady in question should do nothing other than accept the generous salary - especially at the time that they gave her a letter confirming the upper amount in order for her to get her mortgage - that to my mind was the critical point where a) she got it in writing and b) where the judge came to his decision - that ultimately was the checking point for Barclays - and they missed it even there.

WBG :cool:

[Venture]

From what I can see in that article, she is perfectly entitled to keep her salary. Everything that the bank has done in the past 3 years has created a practice that in history, to my mind, would constitute her contract of employment or since it is such a long period (3 years) since the issue of any contract with a lesser amount, would be deemed to have replaced that contract.

For an organisation such as Barclays not to have procedures in place that would stop this happening is a disgrace. Institutions that don't have such critical management over their operations deserve to have this happening to them every now and then to ensure they get their house in order. There is nothing in the article that would not lead me to believe that the lady in question should do nothing other than accept the generous salary - especially at the time that they gave her a letter confirming the upper amount in order for her to get her mortgage - that to my mind was the critical point where a) she got it in writing and b) where the judge came to his decision - that ultimately was the checking point for Barclays - and they missed it even there.

WBG :cool:

I agree with what you are saying, Barclays messed up big time, on more than one occasion, but, in my opinion, I find it hard to believe that anyone would accept double salary without querying it.

[weeboyagee]

I tend to agree with you - but did she really know what her salary was - what if she was paid this from the start? If she was accepting this in the firm belief that the company would stop it if they knew it was wrong then time will allow the parties to fashion themselves into a situation where it becomes an accepted norm that it is difficult to change after a while (especially 3 years).

If she knew she was taking the money wrongly and knew she should have given it back because it wasn't hers then yes, morally she should have given it back - as any decent person should - return money that's not theirs that is.

WBG :cool: