Case 2305241/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Silcox v Kent Central Ambulance Service — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305241/2023
- Decision date
- 19 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Silcox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as an ambulance care assistant for the respondent private ambulance service on a zero-hours contract between February 2021 and March 2023, alongside his full-time role as a firefighter. Following a share acquisition in March 2022 and a consultation in April 2023, the respondent moved away from zero-hours contracts. The Tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed; his engagement ended because he failed to respond to repeated requests for availability between 30 May and 13 July 2023. The complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract in respect of notice pay were therefore not well-founded and were dismissed. The unauthorised deductions claim, which concerned National Insurance contributions, was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, as conceded by the claimant.
The holiday pay complaint under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well-founded. The Tribunal found that the claimant had a statutory right to carry over holiday because the respondent had not given him a reasonable opportunity to take leave or informed him that untaken leave would be lost, and had failed to respond to his requests to clarify holiday pay calculations. The Tribunal accepted the claimant's calculations and ordered the respondent to pay £1,203.03 gross.
The Tribunal also found the respondent had failed to provide written itemised pay statements under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in March, September and October 2022 and March 2023, but was unable to award any loss flowing from that failure. A whistleblowing claim had previously been dismissed by EJ Self on 30 January 2024, and an amendment application to add a flexible working detriment claim was refused at the outset of the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
14 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent; rather his engagement ended because he failed to respond to requests for availability after 30 May 2023. Complaint not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerned National Insurance contributions said to have been erroneously deducted. The claimant conceded the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction; claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Breach of contract claim in respect of notice pay. Tribunal found no notice was due because the respondent did not terminate the claimant's employment; complaint not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well-founded. Tribunal accepted the claimant's calculations and found a statutory right to carry over holiday because the respondent had not given a reasonable opportunity to take leave or informed the claimant that untaken leave would be lost. Respondent ordered to pay £1,203.03 (gross). | Upheld | — | £1,203 |
| Working time regulations | Listed separately on gov.uk but adjudicated together with the holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998; same finding and remedy as the holiday pay claim, not separately quantified. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,203
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 8 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.