Case 2414318/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Dec v G Rose Care Ltd t/a Lavender Lodge Care Home — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414318/2019
- Decision date
- 9 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Dec
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs K Dec brought a section 11 Employment Rights Act 1996 complaint about payslips and a complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay against G Rose Care Ltd t/a Lavender Lodge Care Home. Employment Judge Franey, sitting alone, held that the section 11 payslip reference was not well founded. The tribunal said it had no power under section 11(3)(b) to determine the accuracy of an amount stated on the payslip.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £335 gross. That sum was made up of £64 deducted in respect of DBS fees, £96 owed for hours worked, and £175 awarded under section 24(2) ERA 1996 as compensation for financial loss in the form of reduced Universal Credit attributable to the deductions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant’s section 11 Employment Rights Act 1996 reference in respect of payslips was held not well founded. The tribunal said that under section 11(3)(b) it had no power to determine the accuracy of an amount stated on the payslip. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay well founded and ordered payment of £335 gross, comprising £64 deducted for DBS fees, £96 owed in respect of hours worked, and £175 under section 24(2) ERA 1996 for financial loss caused by the deductions. | Upheld | — | £335 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £335
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.11 ERA 1996
- s.11(3)(b) ERA 1996
- s.24(2) ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.