Case 3300610/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v No appearance or — 2018
- Case reference
- 3300610/2019
- Decision date
- 12 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent as a driver for a short period between 6 November 2018 and 12 November 2018. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that the agreed rate was £100 for driving shifts and £50 for training shifts, and that he worked three training shifts and two driving shifts but was paid nothing.
The tribunal also accepted that the claimant was required to obtain a DBS check costing £25, and that the respondent had explicitly said by text message that this cost would be reimbursed. The respondent did not attend and there was no written authority for any deduction from wages.
Applying sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found that £350 in wages and £25 for the DBS check were properly payable. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £375.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded, comprising unpaid shift pay and reimbursement of the DBS check cost. | Upheld | — | £375 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £375
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13(2) 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.