Case 2306123/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R. Roberts v CareTech Community Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306123/2023
- Decision date
- 27 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chudleigh
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R. Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent as a Senior Support Worker and brought a claim alleging unlawful deductions from wages. She did not attend the hearing and had not provided a schedule of loss or documents as ordered, so the tribunal proceeded in her absence after finding she knew of the hearing date.
The tribunal considered deductions connected with a Direct Earnings Attachment in favour of the Department for Work and Pensions and a Deduction from Earnings Order for child maintenance payments. The respondent said the deductions were required or authorised by statutory provisions and that it had not received an order to stop the deductions until November 2023.
The tribunal found that deductions had been made, but that the burden was on the claimant to show they were unlawful. As the claimant was not present to establish that, the tribunal was not satisfied that the deductions were unlawful and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant alleged unlawful deductions from wages concerning a Direct Earnings Attachment and a Deduction from Earnings Order. The tribunal found the claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- ss.13(1)(a) and/or 14(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 20 of the Social Security (Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 2013
- Welfare Reform Act 2012
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.