Case 6009286/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Rachel Jones v Roofline Solutions Home Improvements Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009286/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Brown Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rachel Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 17 March 2025, Employment Judge T Brown at Reading by Cloud Video Platform recorded that the respondent did not attend and no response had been entered. The tribunal ordered Roofline Solutions Home Improvements Ltd to pay Rachel Jones a redundancy payment of £7,000, arrears of pay for March and April 2024 of £8,605.00, nine weeks' notice pay of £9,264.42 gross, and pay for accrued but untaken annual leave of £1,822.50.
The tribunal also declared that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a compensatory award of £53,527.76. The written record states that reasons were given orally on 17 March 2025 and that no written reasons will be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment ordered. | Upheld | — | £7,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay for March and April 2024. | Upheld | — | £8,605 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Nine weeks' notice pay awarded. | Upheld | — | £9,264 |
| Working time regulations | Pay for accrued but untaken annual leave at termination. | Upheld | — | £1,823 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal declared that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £53,528 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £80,220
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £53,528
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.