In short
If the employer loses the attachment writing, the deduction does not stop of its own accord. The paper not being found in the drawer, or in the email, does not mean the attachment has lifted. Asking the office for a copy writing is a correspondence. Not deducting is a separate payroll decision. The loss does not make these two the same step.
The document that stops the deduction is the office’s lifting writing. Before the copy arrives, it is not told to the employee that the attachment is finished. A rate is not in this text. What the employer does when the writing first arrives is under a salary attachment came to the employer. The lost paper does not have a new fraction written into the guide on the deduction rate. A block at the bank is not put in place of the lost memorandum either. The account record is under my bank account was attached.
A loss in the drawer does not erase the attachment
The attachment does not stay standing by the existence of the paper in the employer’s folder. If the writing was served, the obligation arises with that service. The printout being torn later, the email being deleted, or the human-resources file getting mixed does not lift the attachment at the office. The employer does not announce to the employee that the debt is finished because there is no paper. The announcement is not a ground for releasing the whole of the employee’s wage from that month on either.
The loss does not have a decision given on the merits of the debt either. The employer does not hold that the claim is unjust because the writing could not be found. A text that could not be found is not treated as never having been served. Whether it was served is read from the piece of service that remains in hand, from the earlier answer, or from the office record. If there is no piece either, a date of service is not invented. Inventing a date is not a ground for stopping the deduction. The employer does not write a month that is remembered onto the payroll as the month of service. If the month that is written does not match the piece in hand, that month is not counted as the month the deduction began.
The archive remaining at another branch, in an old email box, or on the computer of an employee who has left does not drop the attachment either. Before the place to be searched is finished, it is not acted as if the paper never came. If the result of the search is to be asked of the office, the question is not told as lifting the loss. The question is for seeing the text of the same file again.
Asking for a copy is separate from not deducting
The employer can ask the office for a copy of the writing. The request is for seeing the text of the same file again. The copy does not build a second attachment, and it does not open a second item from the wage. The copy petition does not take the place of the sentence “I am no longer deducting”. Not deducting is written apart from the request for a copy. If it is not written apart, the loss is read like a lifting. Until the office sends the copy, the employer does not announce the writing to be without effect on the employer’s own.
In the request for a copy, what remains in the employer’s hands is stated: the employee’s identity, the approximate period, and the file on the last receipt if there is one. While there is no trace in hand at all, a file number is not guessed. A guess pastes onto this payroll the writing of another employee, or of another file. The pasted writing does not build correctly either this employee’s attachment or the other side’s file. Until the copy arrives, the employer does not choose the fraction. Not choosing is not dropping the attachment. The two are not made the same line on the payroll. After the copy arrives, the amount is read from the copy’s own text. Whether the months before the copy arrived were deducted is seen separately from the receipts of those months.
The request for a copy is not a way of leaving the employee unaware of the attachment. If the employee asks, the employer does not say the attachment is finished because the paper is not standing. What can be said is that a copy was asked from the office and that a lifting writing has not come. This sentence does not mean the whole of the wage will be left.
Which file the last payroll shows
If a deduction was made in earlier months and money was sent to a file, that receipt is the trace the lost paper left. The employer does not erase this file from the payroll because the paper is not standing. An erased item increases the wage that reaches the employee’s hands and hides the deduction record in the file. Hiding is not the repair of the lost paper. The repair is keeping the file on the receipt on the payroll, and tying the copy to that file.
If there is a trace, the later payroll is not closed before it is asked of the office whether that file is standing. Asking does not have the deduction treated as stopped in that month. If there is no trace, and the amount is not remembered either, the employer does not write a new fraction. The number of the limit does not enter this text. The number is read, after the copy writing arrives, from the writing’s own text and from the payroll. Continuing the previous month’s wrong amount by using the loss as an excuse is a separate account as well. Reading the wrong amount with the payroll is not the subject of this text. The loss does not turn the wrong amount into the right amount.
If the file on the receipt and the employee’s identity do not match, that receipt is not counted as the trace of this writing. The employer does not make another employee’s receipt the proof of the lost file. The proof is there if the identity and the file stand together. If one is missing, it is not said that there is a trace, and a fraction is not invented either.
If the trace has spread over more than one month, each month’s receipt stands separately. The employer does not put the last month’s receipt in place of the earlier months as well. If money did not go in an earlier month, that month is not treated as deducted by looking at the last receipt. If it did go, the amount is read from the receipt that belongs to that month, not from the lost paper. For a month that cannot be read, the employer does not open a new item. Not opening a new item is not erasing that month as a service that never happened either. Erasure is, again, spoken of with the lifting writing.
It is not told to the employee that it has lifted
The employee does not become entitled to the whole of the wage because the employer lost the paper. The employer does not tell the loss to the employee as “the attachment has lifted”. The employee’s own word “I paid” does not take the place of the lost paper either. The deduction is not treated as finished before the payment is entered in the file and the office writes a lifting. The employer does not count the receipt the employee brought as a document for dropping it from the payroll because there is no writing in the folder. The dropping is the office’s writing.
If only one of several writings was lost, the writings that remain do not disappear either. A copy of the one that was lost is asked for. The other writing in hand is not the lifting document of the one that was lost. Which writing is continuing is separated by the file on the payroll and by the office record. The employer does not build an own order and drop the lost one from the list. The order on the list is the subject of the article on the rate. This text does not build that order again. Erasing the lost one from the list does not change the amount of the writing that is standing either.
The writing does not drop when the payroll firm changes
A change of the person who keeps the payroll, of the accounting office, or of the human-resources program does not lift a writing that was served. If the line does not appear in the new program, this is not a record that the attachment has lifted. The last deduction and the receipt in the old program are the trace that should be carried into the new program. The whole of the wage is not left before the trace is carried. The wage that is left does not mean the lost paper was put right.
A change of the company’s trade name, or the workplace being taken onto another payroll, does not stop the deduction before it is asked of the office either. The new trade name does not have the old service treated as never having happened. The employer separates, with the office record, which legal person received the writing and on which payroll the deduction is continuing. Before they are separated, the deduction is not closed as if it were not on the new payroll.
The payroll firm that takes over does not treat as absent the months the previous firm deducted, because there is no writing in hand. The previous firm’s last payroll and receipt should stand in the annex of the transfer. If there is no annex, the new firm does not choose the fraction, and does not tell its employee that the attachment is finished either. Not choosing does not remove the service on the transferring firm. If the records of the two firms conflict, the conflict is not made a ground for hiding the deduction. The conflict is read with the copy to be asked from the office. If the paper, the receipt, and the payroll are together, the reading is made through this trace with contact. The reading does not stop the deduction, and it does not write a new fraction.
After the copy arrives, the payroll is built as limited to the file in the text of the copy. If the name in the copy is different from the employee on the payroll, the copy is not pasted onto this person. A copy that is not pasted does not stop the deduction. While waiting for the copy, the employer does not leave the wages of the months that passed in a lump, and without a trace. Each month’s payroll shows separately whether that month was deducted. A month that is not shown is not a month in which the attachment lifted because of the lost paper.
Conclusion
Loss of the attachment writing does not mean the deduction has stopped. Asking for a copy and not deducting are separate. The document that lifts it is the office’s writing. A fraction is not invented, and the deduction line is not hidden by being erased. The frame is on the enforcement and bankruptcy law page. The official text is the provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004 on notifying an attachment writing to a third person.