Case 1602505/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. L. Jones v FF Autocentre Ltd. t/a “Fast Fit Autocentre” Hearing: Final Hearing — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602505/2024
- Decision date
- 17 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. L. Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr L. Jones, brought a claim against FF Autocentre Ltd. t/a Fast Fit Autocentre. By consent, the respondent’s name was amended to FF Autocentre Ltd. The hearing was a final hearing held at Wales ET via video/CVP on 16 September 2024 before EJ Tinnion.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s claim of unauthorised deductions from wages under s.13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the published written record records the outcome but not a full written set of reasons.
The respondent was ordered to pay compensation of £834, being two weeks’ net wages at £417 per week, plus £583.80 for 7 days’ accrued unused annual leave at £83.40 per day, making a total award of £1,417.80.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under s.13(1) ERA 1996 was well founded. The award comprised £834 for two weeks' net wages at £417 per week and £583.80 for 7 days' accrued unused annual leave at £83.40 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,418 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,418
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13(1) ERA 1996
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.