Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

Repaying training costs

32 replies

MelissaD10 · 15/03/2024 07:52

My husband started a new job last year. It had a clause in the employment contract that if he left within 30 weeks that he may have to pay for the training he had initially up to £7000.

he left at 26 weeks (I wasn’t aware of all this as I personally hadn’t read the contract) and they said he would have to repay and they would work out what was owed taking into consideration service etc. and get back to us the next day. This was now 9 weeks ago, any idea how long after legally they can pursue the money?

OP posts:
FunnyFinch · 15/03/2024 08:22

did he just not go in one day?

or did he work his notice?

Original poster
MelissaD10 · 15/03/2024 08:51

He contacted them to let them know he wouldn’t be going back but there wasn’t a notice period to work.

OP posts:
AlohaRose · 15/03/2024 09:05

No notice period? Are you sure, have you read his contract now?

OneMoreTime23 · 15/03/2024 09:07

Statute of limitations is 6 years.

FunnyFinch · 15/03/2024 09:27

MelissaD10 · 15/03/2024 08:51

He contacted them to let them know he wouldn’t be going back but there wasn’t a notice period to work.

given neither you nor or your partner appears to have read the contract… i suspect you’re wrong on this

OneMoreTime23 · 15/03/2024 09:40

The sort of company that has a training claw back clause isn’t the sort to not have a notice period.

theemmadilemma · 15/03/2024 09:53

OneMoreTime23 · 15/03/2024 09:40

The sort of company that has a training claw back clause isn’t the sort to not have a notice period.

This.

prh47bridge · 15/03/2024 10:19

If there was genuinely no notice period specified in the contract, the statutory notice period applies. This means your husband was required to give one week's notice. However, as others say, it would be surprising that the contract does not say anything about notice periods.

As has been said up thread, they have 6 years to reclaim the money.

Original poster
MelissaD10 · 15/03/2024 11:10

It didn’t have a notice period because it was classed as self employed. No notice had to be given

OP posts:
Original poster
MelissaD10 · 15/03/2024 11:15

prh47bridge · 15/03/2024 10:19

If there was genuinely no notice period specified in the contract, the statutory notice period applies. This means your husband was required to give one week's notice. However, as others say, it would be surprising that the contract does not say anything about notice periods.

As has been said up thread, they have 6 years to reclaim the money.

This may have been the case with the notice period but as it was classed as self employed with no obligation of hours etc it probably could be argued he had the notice period of a week just didn’t do any hours if that makes sense

OP posts:
burnoutbabe · 15/03/2024 11:18

what contract did he sign? was it a contractor contract rather than an employment contract?

if he signed something to say he must repay if leaving/providing services then they can sue him for the money for next 6 years.

(assuming its clear that the training woud cost £7k and that was all agreed in advance - rather than some internal training they suddenly value at £7k)

Chewbecca · 15/03/2024 11:23

The claw back clause for professional exam costs in my previous organisation had a sliding scale so it would have been much less as you got close to the 30w point. We also often didn't bother doing it! But when we did, it was deducted from the last pay packet.

However, this is just one example, it doesn't actually indicate what your DH's organisation might do. They sound a bit dodgy tbh if they employ as SE, yet consider themselves to training you to a relatively high value and threaten to reclaim it.

prh47bridge · 15/03/2024 11:33

If he was self employed, you are correct that there was no notice period. However, if he agreed to a contract allowing them to claw back training costs, they have 6 years to do so.

Autumn1990 · 15/03/2024 16:43

If he’s self employed surely he can go back and work a few more weeks

Original poster
MelissaD10 · 15/03/2024 17:42

Autumn1990 · 15/03/2024 16:43

If he’s self employed surely he can go back and work a few more weeks

They said once his notice was given his contract was terminated. If only I had known about the clause we wouldn’t have left until a few weeks later.

it’s really frustrating because he discussed if there were any salaried postitions at the company and also said that due to this he may have to leave and nothing was mentioned about training repayment until he’d already given over his intentions.

totally know it’s our own stupid fault btw. Lesson learnt and I read all correspondence before any signatures go down now 🙈

OP posts:
Original poster
MelissaD10 · 15/03/2024 17:47

burnoutbabe · 15/03/2024 11:18

what contract did he sign? was it a contractor contract rather than an employment contract?

if he signed something to say he must repay if leaving/providing services then they can sue him for the money for next 6 years.

(assuming its clear that the training woud cost £7k and that was all agreed in advance - rather than some internal training they suddenly value at £7k)

It was.

oh man didn’t want this hanging over us for years. The training in no way would cost 7k
done remotely by an in house trainer employed by the company.

OP posts:
Freakinfraser · 15/03/2024 17:50

yeah they are going to come after him, as they have said, they,don’t want to train someone for them to fuck off right after and they don’t get the benefit.,it’s a just clause.

its his own fault for not reading his contract.

easilydistracted1 · 15/03/2024 17:59

If they pursue this you could argue that he should owe proportionally for the remaining period of the 30 weeks. Which appears to be 6 weeks and therefore £1400. So you might want to try and put this to one side in the meantime. I don't really understand how he can be self employed but contracted to work for them for a set period that seems like a conflict but I could be wrong. Was this a generic in house training or professional qualification. If it's generic training done to a group online they really need to evidence how on earth it cost this much. If they pursue it it's worth looking for some legal advice. Has he had his final invoice paid? If so the response to that might give you an idea if they are going to charge for the training. It says may so the whole thing isn't too clear

OneMoreTime23 · 15/03/2024 18:02

The self employed bit could be something worth pursuing
. Check on the HMRC site as to whether they would have agreed.

totally know it’s our own stupid fault btw. Lesson learnt and I read all correspondence before any signatures go down now 🙈

Is your husband not an adult? Why do you need to check everything?

Original poster
MelissaD10 · 15/03/2024 20:39

easilydistracted1 · 15/03/2024 17:59

If they pursue this you could argue that he should owe proportionally for the remaining period of the 30 weeks. Which appears to be 6 weeks and therefore £1400. So you might want to try and put this to one side in the meantime. I don't really understand how he can be self employed but contracted to work for them for a set period that seems like a conflict but I could be wrong. Was this a generic in house training or professional qualification. If it's generic training done to a group online they really need to evidence how on earth it cost this much. If they pursue it it's worth looking for some legal advice. Has he had his final invoice paid? If so the response to that might give you an idea if they are going to charge for the training. It says may so the whole thing isn't too clear

they said they would work out what it would be get back to us the next day but didn’t and then paid his final invoice a few weeks later so didn’t make much sense to be honest why they would pay that and not keep hold of it.
it was in house training which did lead to him getting a certification , so I can understand why they would have the claw back. It said “may” and “up to” so nothing clear but I’d rather just know.

OP posts:
Original poster
MelissaD10 · 15/03/2024 20:41

OneMoreTime23 · 15/03/2024 18:02

The self employed bit could be something worth pursuing
. Check on the HMRC site as to whether they would have agreed.

totally know it’s our own stupid fault btw. Lesson learnt and I read all correspondence before any signatures go down now 🙈

Is your husband not an adult? Why do you need to check everything?

Edited

Yep, think he just never imagined that he would be leaving the company so soon. But he lost his salaried job so it forced our hand that he needed to find another salaried job. Especially with two kids, we couldn’t risk the self employment not working out.

OP posts:
Original poster
MelissaD10 · 15/03/2024 20:43

Freakinfraser · 15/03/2024 17:50

yeah they are going to come after him, as they have said, they,don’t want to train someone for them to fuck off right after and they don’t get the benefit.,it’s a just clause.

its his own fault for not reading his contract.

Yep, I’d already said it’s our own fault.
I understand the claw back and I agree with the principle of it. I just don’t agree with the amount they have said up to and I just wanted some advice as to how long they could come after us for it.

OP posts:
easilydistracted1 · 15/03/2024 20:49

MelissaD10 · 15/03/2024 20:39

they said they would work out what it would be get back to us the next day but didn’t and then paid his final invoice a few weeks later so didn’t make much sense to be honest why they would pay that and not keep hold of it.
it was in house training which did lead to him getting a certification , so I can understand why they would have the claw back. It said “may” and “up to” so nothing clear but I’d rather just know.

Show quote history

So was he employed then made redundant and taken on as self employed or?? This is very confusing. Or was the job self employed when he was sold as employed? I think they were wanting to claim the money back and were told they didn't have a leg to stand on. Do you think the cost is justified?

Original poster
MelissaD10 · 15/03/2024 20:53

easilydistracted1 · 15/03/2024 20:49

So was he employed then made redundant and taken on as self employed or?? This is very confusing. Or was the job self employed when he was sold as employed? I think they were wanting to claim the money back and were told they didn't have a leg to stand on. Do you think the cost is justified?

Show quote history

Sorry, I’ll explain.
he had a salaried job, took on this self employed job doing something else on the side. But then was made redundant from his salaried job, so we had to replace that salary. Unfortunately the new job and the self employed job conflicted with times etc. and he couldn’t have done both.

the 7k is definitely not justified in my honest opinion. It was a remote course over the course of a couple of days, taken by a salaried employee of the company. A few grand maybe, but not 7

OP posts:
easilydistracted1 · 15/03/2024 20:58

@MelissaD10 TWO DAYS!! 😱 I thought you were talking about some form of post graduate qualification!!!