Case 1800712/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Whitwell v Clear My Credit Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800712/2020
- Decision date
- 17 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Whitwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal substituted Clear My Credit Ltd as respondent and determined the case on the papers under Rule 21. It found Miss B Whitwell's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages to be well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £798.90, with the claimant responsible for any tax and National Insurance on that sum.
The tribunal also found that, when the proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its duty to give the claimant a written statement of employment particulars. It said there were no exceptional circumstances making it unjust or inequitable to make the minimum award, and therefore awarded two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, quantified at £445.38. The total award recorded by the judgment is £1,244.28.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant's unauthorised deduction from wages claim well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £798.90. The claimant was to be responsible for any tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £799 |
| Other | The tribunal found that, when the proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its duty to give the claimant a written statement of employment particulars. It made the minimum award of two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £445 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,244
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.