Case 1806593/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Excell Home Care Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806593/2019
- Decision date
- 13 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages. It accepted that Miss Bedford had undertaken 72.633 hours of work between 8 May and 15 June 2019 and had not been paid for that work, with pay due at £8.35 per hour. The unpaid wages were assessed at £606.46 gross.
The tribunal also found the respondent was in breach of the contract of employment by failing to pay expenses incurred by the claimant in the course of her duties. Those unpaid expenses were assessed at £73.80. The total sum due and owing to the claimant was therefore £680.26, payable on or before 20 January 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had worked 72.633 hours between 8 May and 15 June 2019, had not been paid for that work, and was entitled to £8.35 per hour. The unlawful deduction was assessed at £606.46 gross. | Upheld | — | £606 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to reimburse expenses incurred by the claimant in carrying out her duties. The unpaid expenses were assessed at £73.80. | Upheld | — | £74 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £680
- across all upheld claims
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.