Case 1401120/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Charles, Managing Director v The Construction Industry Training Board — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401120/2022
- Decision date
- 31 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey
- Panel members
- Mr E Beese, Mr K Freeth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Charles, Managing Director
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRobert S Charles Ltd appealed against five CITB levy notices issued for 2016 to 2020, which together amounted to approximately £19,000. The most recent notice was dated 30 July 2021 in the sum of £1,998. The tribunal noted that the appeal was brought out of time, but CITB allowed it to proceed so that the arguments could be heard.
The tribunal set out the statutory framework under the Industrial Training Act 1982 and the relevant Levy Orders, including article 15 of the 2021 Order, which allowed an appeal against an assessment. The central issue was whether the appellant was within scope of the construction levy regime and, if so, whether the tribunal could consider complaints about the way the Board had treated other businesses and the absence of training provision in the appellant’s sector.
On scope, the tribunal accepted CITB’s case that the appellant’s work fell within the relevant categories in Schedule 1. Mr Charles conceded that installing kitchens amounted to alteration of a room as part of a building, that manufacturing built-in storage units was work covered by the schedule, and that other activities were related or ancillary to the principal activities. The tribunal therefore held that the appellant was in scope and that part of the appeal failed.
The tribunal had sympathy with the appellant’s position that competing businesses had not been registered and that CITB did not provide training within the kitchen manufacture and installation sector, but held that those complaints did not concern the validity or quantum of the notices issued against the appellant. It concluded that it had no jurisdiction under the appeal provisions to determine those points, and the appeal was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Training levy appeal against CITB levy notices for 2016 to 2020. The tribunal recorded that the appeal was substantially out of time, but CITB allowed it to be heard. The appellant ultimately conceded the scope point, and the tribunal held the remaining complaints about comparative treatment and lack of training provision were outside its jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- article 15 of the 2021 Levy Order
- Schedule 1 of the 1992 Amendment Order
- Mark Wilkinson Furniture v CITB CO/1318/00
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.