Employer reclaiming training fees after leaving, however they received a grant for the fees

[Gerrybhoy]

I am currently leaving a construction company after graduating from university which my employer paid £2700 worth of tuition fees over 3 years. I have signed an agreement at the start of my employment stating I would "reimburse the company with course fees in full" should I leave within 12 months. However the company have claimed a grant from the CITB based on my attendance at the university for £100 per day over 32 days, given them more than the actual tuition they paid.

My question is are they still able to charge me the fees even though they have recovered their costs for my training and then some? It feels like they are charging me as more of a penalty for leaving them.

Also can they charge for the full fees given they have gotten 3 years worth of service out me? Should they not only be able to reclaim some of year one and twos fees and the full of year three?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Gerry

 

[Mr D]

What exactly did you agree to?

 

[Gerrybhoy]

I have signed a training policy to say that I will pay all course fees in full should I leave within 12 months. No mention of course duration.

I just feel that the fact a grant has been given to the company for all fees gives me an out, there is essentially no fees incurred by the company as this has been recouped.

 

[Mr D]

Do you know if the grant has conditions?

 

[Newchodge]

Your contract is clear, you have to pay. It doesn't affect your contract whatever the grant conditions were.

If the grant conditions required re-paying if you left within 12 months, they will have to repay. It is unlikey you will know he grant conditions, I would ignore that part.

 

[sirearl]

Ignore them,I would love to see them before a beak on this one.

I suppose the tax payer paid for the grant they claimed.

"Double your money and try to get rich" was a TV program some years back.

 

[Ione]

If I understood correctly you have already worked 3 years for the company. If so, it seems to me that you have complied with the condition of not leaving within 12 months.

Or did I get I wrong?

 

[NRLtd]

In terms of the 12 months, does your contract state what 12 months this relates to? Is it if you leave within 12 months of completing the course, or within 12 months of any fees paid?

 

[SamLH]

They trained you up, you left they now have to spend time training somebody new. They've lost time because of you. You owe them tbf.

 

[NRLtd]

They trained you up, you left they now have to spend time training somebody new. They've lost time because of you. You owe them tbf.

No, that's not what a contract for training fees relates to.

Every employer spends time of some sort on developing employees, it's part of being a proactive employer, as is accepting that you may invest time in employees who subsequently leave - it's just the way it is. If spending such time implies a term of owing something to the employer, pretty much any employee in the land could be paying money to their employers when they leave. What matters here is what the contract says, however, is does seem to be something of a liberty to charge someone for training when it may have already been paid for by a grant.

 

[Mr D]

But we don't know whether the grant will now need repaying because the person left.

Grants often have conditions.

 

[NRLtd]

We don't, hence "may have already been paid".

 

[Mr D]

And may need paying back - leaving employer short.

The employee was happy with contract when signed?

 

[NRLtd]

And as others and I have already said, it's all down to the contract.

 

[Talay]

You signed the contract so pay up.

I'd nail you to the court wall if you tried it on me.

 

[NRLtd]

You signed the contract so pay up.

I'd nail you to the court wall if you tried it on me.

But would the nail hold, since they employer may not have actually paid anything...?

I'm in two minds on this one, having seen both sides in the past, from various perspectives.

On one hand training has been paid and the contract signed, so pay up. On the other hand training has been paid and the contract signed, but the employer has reclaimed the fees (and more). It doesn't sit right that the employer should be able to charge the employee for a cost that they haven't actually incurred - in reality, they haven't actually paid any fees. As mentioned, we don't know the (ins and outs) of the agreement, maybe the grant is to be paid back to the CITB...?

 

[Nord20]

How is that remotely relevant?

The OP had the training paid for by a company with set conditions. He/she did not meet those conditions so the cost of the training is repayable to the company.

How the company finds the funds for the training is precisely none of the OP's business. The company could be getting paid 10x the value of the training and it still has zero bearing on the deal made between the company and the OP.

The OP was not in a position to fund his/her own training. The company was and the OP took their money. They (the OP) then didn't live up to their side of the contract and the contract seems pretty clear cut on what happens in that instance.

We have no idea what the contract the company agreed to was in order to get the grant. They may have very onerous conditions that we are not aware of....but we don't need to be, because it is not relevant.

Last time I checked, the law doesn't care about how people feel about things.

 

[NRLtd]

I didn't say the law said anything about feelings, nor did I say it was how I "felt", perhaps you should reread my post. The reason I mentioned it (maybe you'll get that it was in passing if you reread) is because it doesn't seem ethical that a company should be making specific gain from grants when the intended purpose of the grant is then also funded from somewhere else (payment by the trainee).

If it is funded via a grant (assuming the grant doesn't have to be repaid, which it may) then the company hasn't really paid for the training anyway/it's already been repaid.

 

[Nord20]

Believe it or not, I did read it, more than once. I used the word feelings to refer to "it doesn't sit right" in your post, but mostly about the OP's original post, which basically reads 'I don't feel this is fair'.

I reread your post again, twice, and I still, respectfully, disagree. There is no 'little bit of this and little bit of that' and seeing it from both sides. There is one side - there is a signed contract that the OP has breached. That is all that a court would care about.

Whether or not the company can reclaim the funds is between them and the entity issuing the grant, it's not the OPs concern.

But yes, I agree, it is not very nice, but again - not relevant. There is no law against being a jerk.

 

[NRLtd]

...There is no 'little bit of this and little bit of that' and seeing it from both sides. There is one side - there is a signed contract that the OP has breached. That is all that a court would care about.

But that's part of my point; if a contract was always that clear cut, there wouldn't be the protracted cases that go to civil claims and why cases may be "won" by either side without the court enforcing the original terms in full.

The OP agreed to repay the fees that the company paid out, but if those fees were funded via a grant (subject to terms) for that very purpose, has the company actually paid the fees it said it would?

 

[STDFR33]

If the training course had VAT, they should not be recharging you for the amount plus VAT.

 

[Nord20]

"The OP agreed to repay the fees that the company paid out, but if those fees were funded via a grant (subject to terms) for that very purpose, has the company actually paid the fees it said it would?"

But that's my point - there is a degree of separation and I'm willing to bet the contract between the OP and the company didn't make any mention of where or how the company intended to finance this training. I really don't see how the two are connected in any way.

If it was the OP's concern, then they would have been the one to apply for and get the grant, but they didn't - the company expended time and effort, and took on risk, to get that grant so it is entirely up to them what deal they make with the OP. Whether or not the company was able to recoup those costs is not the OPs concern.

 

[paulears]

Surely the issues here are totally separate. Your contracts has a clause you agreed to that is there to make sure they get at least a year's work out of you in consideration of them paying for your training. Any methods they find to offset that payment - grants, or perhaps tax reductions or adjustments are their business - and if they can get their contribution funded - that's great for them. It has nothing to do with you. In the same way that when you carry out work for a company and they pay you £X to do it, you are not entitled to more, if they successfully put up the rate they charge the clients.

If you leave, you pay - and I cannot imagine any judge considering breaking contract terms of this kind unreasonable, as it's been common for years and years.

 

[NRLtd]

... how the company intended to finance this training. I really don't see how the two are connected in any way.

If they are financing the fees by a grant (assuming the grant isn't to be repaid), they haven't actually paid the fees themselves, they made a disbursement that was paid for by the grant. In a civil contract it is of course possible to require any costs incurred to be repaid, however, if those costs are in excess of the actually costs/fees/charges incurred, it can be deemed a penalty and therefore unenforceable.

...the company expended time and effort, and took on risk.

But, on the face of the OP's initial post only, the contractual obligation and grant relate to tuition/qualification costs. The time, effort and risk is the employers burden to bear, its the risk taken with any employee.

 

[NRLtd]

Your contracts has a clause you agreed to that is there to make sure they get at least a year's work out of you in consideration of them paying for your training

But are they paying for the training themselves if it is actually funded via grant for that specific purpose?

In the same way that when you carry out work for a company and they pay you £X to do it, you are not entitled to more, if they successfully put up the rate they charge the clients.

But in that instance there is no obligation to pay anything other than a predetermined rate. Training fee claw backs relate to the specific costs incurred, in this instance the employer is at worst cost neutral.

If you leave, you pay - and I cannot imagine any judge considering breaking contract terms of this kind unreasonable, as it's been common for years and years.

It has been common for training fees, but only in relation to the actual costs incurred. A civil contract of this type usually requires a predetermined fee in exchange for a given service or reimbursement of actual costs/damages. However, with training a predetermined charge or charges in excess of the actual costs can be considered as a penalty, penalties are unenforceable via a civil case.

 

[Aarondc1]

Hi Gerry,

Out of interest what what the outcome of this?

I currently want to leave my company (just finished uni) but they have paid 11k of uni fees and I signed exactly the same contract, full repayment if leave within 12 months of completion
And agin they would of claimed it all back though ciob etc

Wondering if I can get out of it

Cheers

 

[fisicx]

Wondering if I can get out of it

No you can’t. That’s the whole point of the contract.

 

[BubbaWY]

Hi Gerry,

Out of interest what what the outcome of this?

I currently want to leave my company (just finished uni) but they have paid 11k of uni fees and I signed exactly the same contract, full repayment if leave within 12 months of completion
And agin they would of claimed it all back though ciob etc

Wondering if I can get out of it

Cheers

They have invested in you hence putting the clause in your contract. They want to see some return on their investment i.e. at least 12 months of service following qualification. Id argue theyd invested more in you than just the 12 months service they expect back.

 

[Newchodge]

Hi Gerry,

Out of interest what what the outcome of this?

I currently want to leave my company (just finished uni) but they have paid 11k of uni fees and I signed exactly the same contract, full repayment if leave within 12 months of completion
And agin they would of claimed it all back though ciob etc

Wondering if I can get out of it

Cheers

What. exactly, could they claim from the ciob? The OP did not say they received the fees, they received a certain amount per day. I see that as compensating the employer for the absence of their member of staff.

I doubt very much that you can get out of it. If you really want to try you need to get paid for legal advice based on the wording of the agreement that you signed.

 

[kulture]

I agree that it is most likely that you cannot get out of paying, but the question that no-one has asked I why do you want to leave?

If it’s just to get more money then pay up. But if you are being abused, discrimination or some other grievance then details matter and may change this.

 

[Solvelaw]

Write directly to grant company or government department as it should like double recovery. You cannot be compensated for the same loss twice in english law.

 

[Newchodge]

Write directly to grant company or government department as it should like double recovery. You cannot be compensated for the same loss twice in english law.

Did you read the OP? The employer was not compensated for fees. They received a payment for a daily rate while the employee was training and not working.

 

[Solvelaw]

Did you read the OP? The employer was not compensated for fees. They received a payment for a daily rate while the employee was training and not working.

I suspect there may be some terms to that grant which may hold the key. I am saying loosely that they payment of the grant, and employer paying tuition could be interlinked and their could be something there which might be untoward. It does happen....