Mr E Bedzo v ISS Facilities Services Limited — 2022

This was a remedy hearing following the Tribunal’s earlier judgment on the Respondent’s contract claim. The only evidence at the hearing came from Mr Robert Osorio, the Respondent’s regional operations manager and the Claimant’s former line manager. The claim arose because the Claimant had not returned a tablet and mobile telephone provided to him on induction at the end of his employment.

The Respondent originally sought £520, said to be the cost of replacements as at June 2020, but Mr Osorio’s evidence was that the replacement cost had reduced to £498.46 by November 2021 and that figure remained current. The Tribunal accepted that the tablet had been new, the phone had been second-hand when issued, and that the equipment had been in good working order. It also accepted that the Claimant had raised no problems with the equipment during employment.

The Claimant, through his representative, submitted that the open market value of the unreturned items was lower because one item was second-hand and the phone was described as third hand, and suggested a figure in the region of £200 to £250. The Tribunal accepted that second-hand value would be lower than the cost of brand-new replacements, but accepted the Respondent’s submission that the relevant loss was the cost to the Respondent of providing replacement equipment for another employee. Judgment was therefore entered for the Respondent in the sum of £498.46.

The Respondent also sought interest of £75.17 from 24 June 2020 to the date of hearing, but the Tribunal refused interest. It held that it had no power to award interest as a remedy in its own right, and in any event would not have exercised its discretion to award interest in the circumstances, noting the delay caused by the pandemic and a bereavement affecting the Claimant’s representative.