Case 2201459/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Twice Exclusive Agency Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201459/2020
- Decision date
- 29 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms R Peckyte, succeeded in her complaint that there had been an unauthorised deduction from wages. The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages in contravention of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £832.03 net for the wages unlawfully deducted. It also ordered payment of £24 under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as compensation for a financial loss, identified as bank overdraft charges, caused by the deduction.
The tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for other financial losses and costs claimed by the claimant. The respondent was also ordered to account to HMRC for any tax and NI due.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant's complaint of an unauthorised deduction from wages well-founded under section 13 ERA 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay £832.03 net for wages unlawfully deducted and £24 compensation for bank overdraft charges caused by the deduction. | Upheld | — | £856 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £856
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £856
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 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.