Jobcenter Zuflussprinzip Rückforderung falsch?
Meine Arbeit fing am 1. September an. Ich habe Ende August noch Geld für September beim Jobcenter erhalten. Da mein Gehalt aber 5. Oktober überwiesen bekommen habe, brauche ich das Geld für September nicht zurückzahlen wegen dem Zufluss Prinzip.
Ich habe ein Rückforderung vom Jobcenter erhalten, dass ich für September Einkommen erzielt habe und deswegen den Betrag zurückzahlen muss ist das Rechtens ?
Liege ich richtig?
(3 votes)
Loading...
The recovery claim may be correct.
You have only received your salary on 08.10.2024 for September, but it also comes to Date of payment on. If the salary was still due in September (e.g. last working day in the month), it can also be counted, even if it was only in October – because then indebted payment due.
If neither a contract nor a contract agreement or a collective agreement had been reached, the due date of the September salary of 01.10.2024 (§ 614 BGB) would have been – in this case the claim for recovery would not have been correct, because the salary had to be paid only on 01.10.2024. However, this would not apply if the due date in the individual case had been so laid that a repayment should be avoided.
You may at best have to check whether there are claims for damages against the employer, for example because of violation of the contractual obligation to pay the wage in due time (if you have otherwise suffered damage).
So there is nothing in the contract about the wages when it comes to
And it doesn’t matter. So I’m right about the lease, so I don’t need to pay a refund?
Is there a collective agreement? The maturity is usually mentioned in the employment contract – there can also be an operating agreement.
It is not the due date but the actual inflow. Likewise, a fictitious calculation is not possible. Citizenship regulations apply.
In the event of an illegal settlement, no refund may be claimed.
There is also the possibility that the month was granted as a loan – then that anyway looks different = § 42a SGB-II – but we do not know that…
§ 33 (1) SGB II – Transition of claims (§ 115 (1) SGB X proceeds to the regulation)
“For the period for which services are provided, persons who receive benefits for the purpose of securing a living shall be entitled to another who is not a service provider, up to the amount of the expenses paid, to the institution of the services provided under this book if, in the event of a timely performance of the other, benefits for the purpose of securing a living would not have been provided.”
In the event of the employer’s delay in payment of the fee the worker no claim on remuneration and at the same time on the benefits resulting from the delay according to SGB II. In the event of a temporal congruence of wages and social benefits, the entitlement to wages in the amount of social benefits received is transferred to the benefit institution, § 115 para. 1 SGB X. In case of temporal incongruence, the claim for the performance according to the SGB II does not apply retroactively.
Since the salary was already paid to the ArbN, the ArbN gets it back.
What does it mean?
As far as you are in the hearing process, the job centre is informed of the subsequent influx.
In so far as there is a revocation and repayment order, an appeal shall be lodged within the time limit by the same reasoning. Outside the deadline, this is a request for review.
Neither in view of administrative practice nor in terms of case-shaping may it appear helpful to have the facts unnecessarily with bsp. Complicate considerations on maturity or loan considerations. With the recommendation given in the meantime, in any case, to object, the superfluous liquid of the questions appears.
It is recognized that one may still be in the hearing procedure. Nor would it be clear why the suspensive effect of a contradiction is challenged.
Nothing bad.
well – then just contradiction and suspension of execution – see penultimate comment from me
No, it has not been granted as a loan, as I have opted out of JB on 01.10, and therefore no longer wanted to receive benefits. If I hadn’t signed up, the normal pay for this was not the case. There’s nothing left on the communications.
Has the benefit been granted for the month of September as a loan? In most cases, before the start of the job, the job centers provide the service and then grant a loan for the first month – then the problem with the influx would no longer be given.
This is now too complicated to explain – these are rules on changes and repeals of administrative acts.
The objection does not, however, relieve from the repayment.
That is why the Suspension of enforcement If the decision is to be taken by the end of the opposition procedure, it is necessary to wait.
Then you wait until you decide on your contradiction.
Important: Submit written (own-handed signature) (no normal e-mail)
The decision would be to be cancelled because of the achievement of income (§ 40(2), point 3 SGB Il in conjunction with § 330(3) Third book Social Code – SGB Ill in conjunction with § 48(1) sentence 2
Number 3 SGB X.
You are charged with income. This should have led to the omission of your claim. Income is to be calculated in the month in which it flows (§ 11(2) SGB II). There is no personal debt.
What does it mean?
The loan is actually the case – one places the current performance at the start of work and grants the first month as a loan – then one avoids the problem with the salary inflow…
There is also the possibility that the month has been granted as a loan – then it looks otherwise anyway = § 42a SGB-II
Yes – unless there is a collective agreement or an operating agreement where this is otherwise regulated. In any case, object. Even if it were to be different in the contract of employment, there should be no objection. Can you upload the recovery order completely, so that you can look at the sections and the reasons that are called there?
Does it mean that if the contract does not regulate when the wage is paid, this applies in accordance with § 614 BGB ?
If all this is not true and the due date is actually not regulated, then you should object to the recovery order in due time and form, and you should revoke the maturity of the salary on 01.10. acc. § 614 BGB, which in general excludes an invoice in September with the actual payment receipt – then wait for what happens.
No, it would not be if you actually received your wage for September only in October and did not receive services in advance for November at the end of October.
Have you already demonstrated the influx of your wage for September to the job center by a copy of the account withdrawal?
I gave the job center the pay bill for October, but I am not an account statement. Right, I don’t need to pay a recovery if the first salary on 8th. October came?
Why not?
Your wage bill does not say anything about the influx of your wage, so you have to prove it accordingly by e.g. a copy of the account withdrawal.
Then you will not have to reimburse from the services for September to the job center if the wage for September has been proven to have been paid only in October.
Rightly, you’re right with your view, as your first wage only went into your account on the 5th of the following month.
This would in principle impermiss the JC’s requirement for its performance in the Septemper.
Just “October 5” doesn’t really fit your story because the 5.10.2024 was a Saturday. Saturdays are not regular banking days.
ups was the 8th so I’m right. in the case?
I’d see that. In particular, if your employer commissioned the salary with his bank in October for transfer.
It is therefore likely that there should be a contradiction against the repayment decision for the September advance.
The JobCenter can’t know that. Of course you have to
If your September salary was only available in October, you do not have to reimburse the performance. Of course, you have to prove this with the account statement.