Case 1305244/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Payne v Bloomberg Care Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305244/2024
- Decision date
- 22 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kight Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Payne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss E Payne brought a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against Bloomberg Care Services Ltd. The respondent did not attend. Employment Judge Kight found the complaint well-founded, holding that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in the period between 19 January 2024 and 31 July 2024 while she was suspended but ready and willing to work.
The judgment records that the amount to be paid was the gross sum deducted, £9,588.95. The tribunal set out the calculation by reference to monthly sums of £1,117.79 for 1-31 March 2024 and £2,117.79 for each of the periods 1-30 April 2024, 1-31 May 2024, 1-30 June 2024 and 1-31 July 2024. The claimant was stated to be responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on the payment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant succeeded on a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 19 January 2024 to 31 July 2024. The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum deducted, with the claimant responsible for tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £9,589 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,589
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.