Case 3309587/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v The Maintenance Services Team Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309587/2022
- Decision date
- 16 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held in the respondent's absence, the tribunal proceeded under rule 47 after contacting the respondent, which said no one would attend. The tribunal declared that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant his final salary due in April 2022 and deducted £145 from his final itemised pay slip for a "lock job" without explanation. The respondent was ordered to pay £2,770.03 in respect of those deductions.
The tribunal also found that, in trying to obtain payment and pay slips, the claimant visited the respondent's premises on three occasions and took three days off work. It recorded loss of earnings of £480 and travel expenses of £148, and ordered the respondent to pay a further £628 under section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. The total sum ordered was £3,398.03.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared that the respondent made unauthorised deductions by failing to pay the claimant's final salary due in April 2022 and by deducting £145 for a "lock job" without explanation. It also made an additional award of £628 under section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 for losses and expenses incurred in pursuing payment. | Upheld | — | £3,398 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,398
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations
- section 24(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.