Case 4121205/2018 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4121205/2018 Hearing at Edinburgh on January 2019 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Georgina Otu
The claimant, Georgina Otu, brought a wages claim against Strongtower Eco Cleaning Company UK Limited for £260 in respect of four days' work in June 2018. At the hearing the respondent accepted that £264 was due for five hours worked over those four days, but said that payment had already been made on 14 September 2018.
The tribunal compared the respondent's bank records with the claimant's Santander statement. The respondent's documents showed a payment of £264 to a bank account recorded as 01463860, but the claimant's bank statement showed her account number as 10483860 and contained no receipt of the payment. The tribunal found that the respondent had paid the money to the wrong account number, so the claimant had not received the sum due.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's suggestion that the non-payment was deliberate. It accepted Mrs Babasola's evidence that, once the account-number discrepancy was identified, she immediately understood what had happened and was willing to make payment of the correct amount. The tribunal described the matter as an unfortunate error caused by the CAB adviser's inadvertent mistake in recording the bank details.
The claim succeeded in full and the respondent was ordered to pay £264. The tribunal said no other payments were sought in the claim and saw no basis for any further award.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant alleged non-payment of wages for four days' work in June 2018. The respondent accepted £264 was due but said it had been paid; the tribunal found payment had gone to the wrong bank account number, so the claimant had not been paid. | Upheld | — | £264 |
The 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.
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.