Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Barclays Bank Worker Given Double Pay By Mistake Will Keep Receiving Her Boosted Salary

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...getting-it.html

A bank worker paid double her salary by mistake for almost three years has won a legal battle to keep her bigger pay packet.

Natasha Keenan, 36, will also be allowed to keep the £20,000 overpayment she has already received.

Mrs Keenan, a part-time complaints adviser for Barclays, said she had not realised she was wrongly being paid £17,000 a year instead of the £9,500 she was due.

When the bank discovered the administrative error, it demanded she hand back around £20,000.

Mrs Keenan took Barclays to an employment tribunal.

Now a judge has ordered that the mother-of-two will continue to receive double salary for working 19 hours a week.

Barclays had already withdrawn its demand that Mrs Keenan repay the £20,000.

The judge has confirmed that she does not need to pay back a penny after finding the overpayment was the bank's fault.

In April, Mrs Keenan told the tribunal in Ashford, Kent, that she had no idea she was being overpaid for the hours she worked.

She said she had spent the extra money and had used her pay slips to apply for a mortgage on the three-bedroom house in Erith, Kent, that she shares with husband-Brent, 31, and their children Leo, four, and 14-month- old Sunny.

Mrs Keenan is expecting their third child.

Barclays even provided a reference confirming her salary when she applied for the loan last year.

The bank also gave her regular pay rises - including a £3,000 performance-related bonus - without spotting the error.

She told the tribunal: 'If I had realised they'd made a mistake with my salary which could be spotted at any time, I wouldn't have put my family's future at risk and used it to apply for a mortgage.

'My manager and team leader must have known what I was getting paid.'

Mrs Keenan told the tribunal that she originally earned £9,500 a year working for the Woolwich building society, but when the business was taken over by Barclays three years ago she was assured she would receive a 'significant' pay rise.

When she received a new contract stating she would be paid £17,000 a year, she assumed the increase was the pay rise she had been promised.

Barclays claims the amount stated was for full-time employment and says she should have been paid on a pro-rata basis.

The bank said the error was only picked up in December last year by managers brought in to conduct a financial review.

No wonder the banks are in trouble.

Just a minor clerical error was it that took 3 years to spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashford, Kent. I am prepared to bet she needs the full whack to pay rent to the Wilsons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL didn't realise she was getting over payed.....Lying cow

It's a question of contract.

If either party establishes, by practice, a parameter, then that parameter becomes

part of the contract.

Works both ways. Usually companies use it to bully staff.

"He made no objection when his pay was cut by 50% and it therefore became part of the contract."

Nice to see it working the other way, just for once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the new employment law state that it is illegal to pay employees different salaries for doing the same job? If she keeps this salary then won't Barclays have to raise the salaries all part-timers in her position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't the new employment law state that it is illegal to pay employees different salaries for doing the same job? If she keeps this salary then won't Barclays have to raise the salaries all part-timers in her position?

Here's the telling bit though:

Mrs Keenan told the tribunal that she originally earned £9,500 a year working for the Woolwich building society, but when the business was taken over by Barclays three years ago she was assured she would receive a 'significant' pay rise.

So when she saw her new salary, probably just assumed it was the rise she was assured of. If it was in the contract then she did nothing wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL didn't realise she was getting over payed.....Lying cow

Actually, you're believing the spin put on it by the media. She wasn't being over paid at all. Her contract o employment sai £17K and that's what she received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine redundacy looms for this woman.

She can't really beleive they'll keep paying had £17k for 1/2 shifts in a call center.... no callc enter worker gets £35k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck to her - the bank royally screwed up so why should she have to pay for their mistake.

I'm currently being paid for a 37 hour week in my contract of employment but I'm being forced to fill in a timesheet of 40 hours per week - I've brought this to the attention of my employers but they're not interested, and just say the two are separate and the timesheeting system can't cope with 37 hours per week ! Muppets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good luck to her - the bank royally screwed up so why should she have to pay for their mistake.

I'm currently being paid for a 37 hour week in my contract of employment but I'm being forced to fill in a timesheet of 40 hours per week - I've brought this to the attention of my employers but they're not interested, and just say the two are separate and the timesheeting system can't cope with 37 hours per week ! Muppets.

Just put down 3 hours a week as 'Studying contract of employment'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.