Case 2303311/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Adams v Chartwells Compass Group — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303311/2018
- Decision date
- 24 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Adams brought a claim of unlawful deduction from wages against Chartwells Compass Group. Employment Judge Corrigan, sitting alone at Ashford on 24 July 2019, dismissed the claim as not well-founded.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been paid the correct gross amounts during her employment. The claimant believed too much tax had been deducted because she had started on the wrong tax code, but the judge said that, if correct, that was a matter for her employer and HMRC and could not be checked on the limited documents available, which were only the claimant's March 2018 payslips.
The main factual issue concerned an incorrect first payslip showing gross pay of £929.37 and net pay of £743.57. The tribunal accepted that this payslip was wrong and that it was corrected the same month by a further payslip dated 29 March 2018 showing the net pay reversal. The judge also accepted from the claimant's bank statement and the respondent's letter that the sum shown on the first payslip was never actually paid, despite the letter inaccurately suggesting it had been paid and then recovered.
The claimant argued that the respondent should have helped further by providing an EYU promptly so that her housing benefit position could be corrected. The tribunal held that disputes about the EYU, and whether housing benefit was incorrectly stopped, did not fall within the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had been paid the correct gross amounts during employment. Her concern about tax deductions on an alleged wrong tax code was not resolved on the evidence before the judge, who had only the March 2018 payslips. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.