Case 4102732/2019 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102732/2019 Hearing at Edinburgh on May 2019 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Leigh Jordan v Family Circle Care Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102732/2019
- Decision date
- 6 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102732/2019 Hearing at Edinburgh on May 2019 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Leigh Jordan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningLeigh Jordan began working for Family Circle Care Ltd as a home carer on 1 August 2004. The tribunal found that the respondent had issued mileage guidance in 2011 requiring weekly submission of mileage claim forms, with no opportunity for late submissions to be paid. The claimant accepted that she was poor at submitting claims on time, and Mr Stevenson said the respondent had previously paid mileage on the basis of claims for 25 miles per day but later paid only actual mileage from late-submitted forms.
On the mileage issue, the tribunal held that the claimant's mileage payments were expenses reimbursement, not wages, and therefore fell within section 27(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and were outside the unlawful deductions jurisdiction. It also observed that the respondent's process required timely submission of mileage claims and that the claimant commonly submitted them three to six months late. For those reasons, the claim for unpaid mileage failed.
On the pay-rate issue, the claimant said her weekend rate had been reduced from £10.50 per hour, or alternatively that her terms and conditions had been changed without agreement. The tribunal found that an 20 August 2018 letter to care staff stated care-at-home rates of £9.00 per hour Monday to Friday and £9.50 per hour at weekends from 3 September 2018, but later correspondence on 3 November 2018 confirmed the claimant's weekend rate as £9.78 per hour. The tribunal accepted Mr Stevenson's evidence and the payslips showing that the weekend rate remained £9.78, and found there had been no actual reduction or unilateral amendment.
The tribunal therefore held that neither head of claim succeeded and dismissed the claim in full. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's case had two heads: unpaid mileage expenses said to total £310, and an alleged reduction in weekend pay. The tribunal held the mileage payments were reimbursements of expenses rather than wages, and in any event noted the claimant often submitted mileage claims months late. It also found no reduction in the weekend rate, which remained at £9.78 per hour. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.27(2)(b) 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.