Zoe Peveller v TLC Carers Limited — 2025

Case reference: 6017849/2024
Decision date: 3 November 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Searley REPRESENTATION
Venue: London South

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Zoe Peveller

Respondent

TLC Carers Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Searley, sitting alone with the respondent not in attendance, found the breach of contract claim for notice pay well-founded and ordered damages of £5,000 (gross, calculated to reflect Post Employment Notice Pay tax treatment).

The complaint of unfair dismissal was also well-founded. The tribunal held there was a 0% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, and that the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, justifying a 25% uplift to the compensatory award under s.207A TULR(C)A 1992. The basic award is £1,442.31 and the compensatory award (after uplift) is £7,904.11. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply: total monetary award £9,346.42, prescribed element £5,823.29 (5 September 2024 to 3 November 2025), difference £3,523.13.

Claims and outcomes

2 claims adjudicated

Claim type	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Upheld	—	£9,346
Breach of contract	Upheld	—	£5,000

Source tags (gov.uk)

Breach of Contract and Unfair Dismissal

Legal tests applied

3 references

s.207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £14,346
Basic award: £1,442
Compensatory award: £7,904

Source document

Primary record

The full judgment is available 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.