Case 3314747/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Turner v Short Stay Developments Limited (now Fenton Dunme Limited) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314747/2021
- Decision date
- 11 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Milner-Moore Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Turner
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Turner was employed by Short Stay Developments Limited from 13 March 2020 to 27 August 2021. In his ET1 he complained about deductions for tax and national insurance, the absence of NEST pension enrolment and contributions, and the absence of a P60 or P45, and he said he had resigned because the respondent did not act on his concerns. The tribunal file also showed that parts of the ET1 alleging unfair dismissal and whistleblowing had already been rejected under rule 12, because he did not have two years' service for an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint and the ET1 did not set out substantive grounds for whistleblowing. No reconsideration or appeal was made against that rejection, so those matters were not determined at the hearing.
On the unauthorised deduction claim, the tribunal held that deductions for income tax and national insurance were authorised by statute. The real complaint was that the sums deducted were not paid to HMRC, which the tribunal said was a matter for HMRC to pursue using the claimant's payslips. The tribunal also rejected the pension-related aspects of the claim: the contract referred to enrolment in NEST, but there was no evidence that employee pension deductions were made, and employer pension contributions are not wages for section 27 ERA 1996, relying on Somerset County Council v Chambers.
On the itemised pay statement claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had in fact received payslips. His complaint was that the figures shown for tax and national insurance were inaccurate because the deductions had not been passed on to HMRC. The tribunal held that section 11 ERA 1996 is concerned with whether the statement contains the required particulars, and section 11(3) prevents a complaint that is solely about the accuracy of the amounts stated. The references to a P45 and P60 did not assist because those documents are outside the itemised pay statement regime. Both remaining claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under sections 13-27 ERA 1996 was dismissed. The tribunal held that deductions for income tax and national insurance were authorised by statute, and that the complaint that sums were not passed to HMRC was a matter for HMRC rather than an unauthorised deduction claim. The tribunal also held that there was no evidence of deductions for employee pension contributions, and employer pension contributions are not wages for section 27 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide an itemised pay statement under section 11 ERA 1996 was dismissed. The tribunal found the complaint was really about the accuracy of the amounts shown on the payslips, which is excluded by section 11(3), and noted that any complaint about P45 or P60 documents did not fall within the itemised pay statement regime. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- sections 13-27 ERA 1996
- section 27(1) ERA 1996
- section 11(3) ERA 1996
- section 94 ERA 1996
- rule 12 of the Tribunal Rules
- Somerset County Council v Chambers UKEAT/0417/12
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.