Case 1806582/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Bell v Teltech Mobile Installations Limited AT A HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806582/2021
- Decision date
- 3 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Bell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages for August 2021, when he was not paid at all, and ordered the respondent to pay £1,703.28 gross. It also declared that there had been a series of unauthorised deductions from wages from 3 August 2020 to 1 September 2021, including deductions in respect of loan repayments that were not properly authorised under section 13 ERA 1996. Remedy for that wider deductions claim was adjourned pending the claimant's written confirmation of the amount still outstanding after accounting for tax, national insurance, pension deductions, child maintenance and sums already paid.
The tribunal held that the respondent dismissed the claimant without notice in breach of contract and awarded one week's gross wages of £393.06. It also found breach of contract in relation to pension contributions, ordering £426.00 for employer contributions that should have been paid to the designated provider and £525.46 for employee contributions deducted from wages but not passed on, after deducting £47.34 already accounted for for August 2021.
The tribunal declared that the respondent had failed to give itemised pay statements required by sections 8 or 9 ERA 1996, but made no further order because there had been no unnotified deduction in the 13 weeks before presentation and further recovery was barred. It also found that the respondent was in breach of the requirement to provide a written statement of particulars of employment and awarded an additional two weeks' wages under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, namely £786.12. The child maintenance deduction complaint was dismissed because the matter was already being dealt with by the relevant authority and no loss was shown, and the claim for accrued but untaken holiday in the current year was dismissed because the pro rata entitlement had already been exceeded by holiday taken. The judgment therefore ordered immediate payment of £3,833.92, with the wider deductions remedy left for later determination.
Claims and outcomes
9 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 | The respondent did not pay the claimant at all for August 2021; the tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum. This was part of a wider deductions dispute. | Upheld | — | £1,703 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared a series of unauthorised deductions from wages from 3 August 2020 to 1 September 2021, including deductions in respect of loan repayments that were not properly authorised under section 13 ERA 1996. Remedy for the wider period was adjourned pending written confirmation of the amount still outstanding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant was dismissed without notice in breach of contract; damages were assessed at one week's gross wages. | Upheld | — | £393 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract for failure to pay employer pension contributions to the designated pension provider. | Upheld | — | £426 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract for failure to pay employee pension contributions deducted from wages; the award was reduced by £47.34 already accounted for for August 2021. | Upheld | — | £525 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,834
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.13(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.11 and s.12(3) ERA 1996
- s.8 or s.9 ERA 1996
- s.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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.