Case 3202643/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Gentle v Kevin Belfall trading as United Recovery — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202643/2021
- Decision date
- 22 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Ross Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Gentle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs D Gentle presented a claim on 29 April 2021 for unlawful deduction from wages arising from work between 25 January and 9 February 2021. She said 108 hours were unpaid and that she had not been paid at all. No ET3 response was filed. In correspondence, Kevin Belfall denied that she worked for him or for United Recovery and suggested that another company was involved. The tribunal amended the respondent's name to Kevin Belfall trading as United Recovery.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence in full and found that she was employed by Kevin Belfall trading as United Recovery. It relied on the interview with Debbie Belfall, the agreed pay rates of £350 per week for a 3.5 ton truck and £450 per week for a 7.5 ton truck, the schedules sent from a United Car & Van Transport Services email address, Mr Belfall's description of himself as proprietor, the WhatsApp message dismissing the claimant on 9 February 2021, and the fact that the claimant had paid Mr Belfall personally £32 for a tachograph. It rejected the suggestion that Total Trading Logistics Limited was the employer, noting that it appeared dormant during the relevant period and that the vehicles and uniforms were branded United Recovery.
The claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded in the sum of £915.60. The tribunal also found that the respondent had breached section 1 ERA 1996 by failing to provide written particulars and, under section 38 Employment Act 2002, awarded two weeks' pay of £700 rather than four weeks because the claimant had only worked for around two weeks and a higher award was not just and equitable. The total award was £1,615.60.
A notice pay point raised in the witness statement failed because there was no breach of contract claim in the ET1 and no statutory right to notice until one month's employment. The tribunal also rejected a request for statutory uplift because there was no evidence of a grievance and the case was about unpaid wages rather than dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unpaid wages of £915.60. It also made a separate award of £700 under section 38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £916 |
| Breach of contract | A notice pay point raised in the witness statement failed. The tribunal said there was no breach of contract claim in the ET1 and no statutory right to notice until one month's employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,616
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- balance of probability
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.