Op you agreed for the company to put you through your training. You also say you signed to say you would pay it back if you left within 2 years.
If that is all correct then you will need to pay the figure discussed or written in the signed clause. If if does not state a sliding scale and they have only asked for 50% think yourself lucky pay it and move on.
With a signed document stating you would pay it back if you left within 2 years you don’t have a leg to stand on simple as that.
They will take you to small claims court and win. You will lose. Learn a lesson from it and move on with life.
Trucker Ed:
You was obviously quick enough to accept there offer and not their fault you failed miserably.
50% sounds like a good offer, by not paying you’re risking getting taken to court to get the money back, stopping them offering this to any future employee and if I was them I’d right you a stinking reference stating how you rip off your employer.
Is it really worth it, I doubt it.
More or less what I said. Why try to wriggle out of it? Do what’s right.
If some one is bloody minded in the office they could harm your credit rating. You would look reasonable if you offer to pay back some of the amount that they are asking for.
If you went into a shop and picked up, say, some cheese. You said to the checkout attendant, look I don’t have enough money to pay for the cheese, but I will sign a declaration to say I will pay for it in six months. If you go back in six months and say, look, I didn’t eat the cheese so I don’t think I should have to pay, do you think that would be reasonable? No, you have to pay for the cheese whether you eat it or not.
Not a professional driver (or a lawyer) but have experience in this area in a different field. The agreement is almost certainly unenforceable. You likely have Legal Expenses insurance on your home insurance or car policy - check this. Tell then you have been advised that it is not enforceable but they are welcome to take you to court, but if they do you will contest it. The legal costs for them will be far higher than any money they can recoup from you so if they have any sense they will drop it.
If you don’t have legal cover then tell them the same anyway - they do not know you don’t have the cover and will likely back down…
When about to sign such a contract, cross out the main clause, and re-write it as
“I agree not to work driving a heavy goods vehicle at any other location other than Bloggs Haulage & Son Co, the current sponsor of my heavy goods course(s) to in future be paid by the firm”
THEY want your bum on the seat, and for you to stay, after all…
You’ve now got a fair crack at a second chance, should you fail, and there’s nothing to stop you leaving to take a NON driving job - should you actually DO fail…
If anyone pushing a contract at you - refuses to let you ammend it thus, then point blank refuse to sign it.
I crossed out a bit of my 2015 Brakes contract where they could have me doing non-driving work, “should the driving work dry up”…
I wasn’t prepared to sign up to be a “General Dogsbody” or “Cleaner of the Toilets when Grounded”, so I felt I was within my rights…
Daft thing is, I don’t think anyone turned to the page within the contract, and ever noticed!! I waited to get pulled in the office over my mutilated paperwork one day - but I then got laid off before that ever happened. Perhaps I even got offered “Redundancy”, because I wasn’t going to be side-shifted into an inferior role?
dom_f:
Not a professional driver (or a lawyer) but have experience in this area in a different field. The agreement is almost certainly unenforceable. You likely have Legal Expenses insurance on your home insurance or car policy - check this. Tell then you have been advised that it is not enforceable but they are welcome to take you to court, but if they do you will contest it. The legal costs for them will be far higher than any money they can recoup from you so if they have any sense they will drop it.
If you don’t have legal cover then tell them the same anyway - they do not know you don’t have the cover and will likely back down…
Why on earth would you go down this route? What is wrong with you people? Utter scum. I hope karma has its day. What a disgusting way to treat a business who paid out of their own pocket for you to do your class 1. I hope all companies stop offering this and force all new drivers to pay for it themselves in full out of their own pocket as that’s what they deserve.
peterm:
Why tar everyone with the same brush… [zb]!
Not directed at you Peter. You are on the same page as me from your earlier response. Trouble is this kind of unscrupulous “stick it to the man” behaviour is what causes companies to simply not bother making the generous offer in the first place and of course everybody then suffers. No conscience, many people.
dom_f:
Not a professional driver (or a lawyer) but have experience in this area in a different field. The agreement is almost certainly unenforceable. You likely have Legal Expenses insurance on your home insurance or car policy - check this. Tell then you have been advised that it is not enforceable but they are welcome to take you to court, but if they do you will contest it. The legal costs for them will be far higher than any money they can recoup from you so if they have any sense they will drop it.
If you don’t have legal cover then tell them the same anyway - they do not know you don’t have the cover and will likely back down…
Why on earth would you go down this route? What is wrong with you people? Utter scum. I hope karma has its day. What a disgusting way to treat a business who paid out of their own pocket for you to do your class 1. I hope all companies stop offering this and force all new drivers to pay for it themselves in full out of their own pocket as that’s what they deserve.
Well said lets increase the driver shortage, bigger bucks for me
the company were doing it for themselves as much for the would be lgv driver .If it goes to court the beak will say he did not pass the test,and the company should have known that he was so bad as to fail bad,.and they should never have put up the money for the lessons and test.example if a little fat man asked if he could be trained as a high jumper and he would pay, and the trainer accepted he then fails …the trainer should not have taken him on
Most companies, especially those involved in haulage, will have a solicitor readily available, I don’t understand why some people think the company “wouldn’t bother” to chase the debt (because that’s what it is). It wouldn’t take much effort at all for them to take OP to court and stick it to him with a CCJ, which will cause far more distress than paying pack 50% of what he willingly accepted when it suited his purpose.
Like many others have said, pay up, don’t make life harder for yourself OP
Mervwhu:
Hi. Im new to this
My company paid for me to do my hgv1 and i signed to say i would pay it back if i left within 2 years
I failed miserably and have now left the company 18 months later
Now they are saying i have to payback 50% of the course as ive left before 2 years.
Does this count as a fail or if i passed.
Thanks in advance
You agreed to be tied in for 2 years so they can reasonably expect the 50% to be paid back regardless of a pass or fail.
Mate, with all due respect, you’re talking out of your backside.
It wasn’t a training school (he entered into a contract to purchase a good or service) it was a job. All jobs have training.
I might sign a contract with you stating every time I am one hour late for work you dock me one week’s pay. You may give me that contract. I may sign it. As far as the law is concerned, it’s an uneforceable contract.
It’s very old contract law (going back to the last century!) And to see the haulage industry still trying to use it just shows how much crap and lies you have to sift through as a driver just to try and make a living.
It’s an uneforceable contract.
OP - go see your local solicitor. Pay £25 for a letter from the solicitor to the firm telling them to go f*CK themselves and then demand the £25 back before you take THEM to court.
That’s consumer law you referenced there, not employment contract law.
It’s a term of employment that if the OP leaves before 2 years, they need to pay back the costs of training. This is common in some sectors, and it is ENFORCEABLE.
Zac_A:
Most companies, especially those involved in haulage, will have a solicitor readily available, I don’t understand why some people think the company “wouldn’t bother” to chase the debt (because that’s what it is). It wouldn’t take much effort at all for them to take OP to court and stick it to him with a CCJ, which will cause far more distress than paying pack 50% of what he willingly accepted when it suited his purpose.
Like many others have said, pay up, don’t make life harder for yourself OP
On what grounds should he pay up?
You’re giving advice on an open forum with no links to your advice or “knowledge”
So tell me, and show me (with links) why he should pay up and under which part of contract/employment law he owes one penny.
Or maybe you just “feel” he owes some money because, reasons?
TruckerGuy:
That’s consumer law you referenced there, not employment contract law.
It’s a term of employment that if the OP leaves before 2 years, they need to pay back the costs of training. This is common in some sectors, and it is ENFORCEABLE.
It is NOT enforceable.
OP received no benefit (he failed). The ‘firm’ took on all risk by putting OP forward for the training.
Did the firm offer OP the training as a member of staff or did OP approach the firm for training before he was employed?
This nonesene has been played out a thousand times in the courts and the courts almost always come down on the side of the employee. The rare cases they don’t involve far more specialised training costing hundreds of thousands (think pilots) where the condition of employment revolved around the training aspects and was a condition of the job acceptance.
Warehouse to wheels?
Best of luck with a judge getting your money back. Lol
TruckerGuy:
That’s consumer law you referenced there, not employment contract law.
It’s a term of employment that if the OP leaves before 2 years, they need to pay back the costs of training. This is common in some sectors, and it is ENFORCEABLE.
Show me your link.
Show me a case of warehouse to wheels where the employer recouped their outlay?
The employer “gambled” (took a risk) that training OP would reap financial benefits. It didn’t. That’s called business. sh*t happens. Oh dear, never mind.
An unfair contact is unenforceable.
Nothing can be considered more unfair than your employer putting you forward for training (which your employer will benefit from financially) and also asking you to bear all the risk.
He also said he left 18 months later, so the question becomes: what did he do in that time, and did the term of “pay if leave within 2 years” still apply?
I really can’t see how it can’t be enforcable? He agreed to the term at the outset, did the training (even if he failed the test at the end - it could be argued the TRAINING costs are still lost) and he then continued to work for them for 18 months afterwards.
