Case 1800971/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Drammeh Fatty v Procare Facilities Services Limited (trading as NIC Services Group Limited) Tribunal: Birmingham (determination on the papers) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800971/2020
- Decision date
- 8 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Drammeh Fatty
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs B Drammeh Fatty alleged unlawful deductions from wages said to total £2,240 for April to October 2019 after her employment transferred from SBFM Limited to Procare Facilities Services Limited on 11 November 2019. The tribunal reviewed bank statements, payslips, clocking records and the respondent’s HR analysis, and accepted the TUPE history and wage records that showed regular payments, with some variation explained by holiday, suspension on pay, absence and later adjustments.
On the unlawful deductions claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown that the amounts claimed were actually unpaid. It concluded that the claimant had been paid the sums to which she was contractually entitled, or that any shortfall was later corrected in the following month’s pay. The claim for unlawful deductions from wages was therefore dismissed.
Separately, the tribunal made declarations under ERA 1996 section 12(3) that the pay statements dated 17 June 2019 and 18 November 2019 failed to notify deductions of £73.89 and £184.72 respectively. No monetary award was made under section 12(4) because the missing amounts were later made good in the next month’s pay. The complaint about failure to provide written particulars of employment was dismissed because, as at the date the proceedings were issued, the respondent had complied with ERA 1996 section 1; the probationary-period wording in the contract was not a required particular at that time, so no section 38 Employment Act 2002 remedy arose.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for alleged arrears totalling £2,240 across April to October 2019. The tribunal found the claimant had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that significant underpayments had occurred and concluded she had been paid the correct sums or that any shortfall was later made good. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of failure to give a statement of employment particulars under ERA 1996 section 1. The tribunal found that, as at 6 February 2020, the respondent had complied with the statutory duty; the probationary-period wording in the contract was inaccurate but was not a required particular before 6 April 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint about written pay statements. The tribunal made declarations under ERA 1996 section 12(3) that the pay statements dated 17 June 2019 and 18 November 2019 failed to notify deductions of £73.89 and £184.72 respectively, but no award was made under section 12(4) because the underpayments were later made good. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.8(1) ERA 1996
- s.11(1) ERA 1996
- s.12(3) ERA 1996
- s.12(4) ERA 1996
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.4 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- Railcare Ltd v Cook [1999]
- balance of probabilities
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.