Mr A Mahmood v Livingwell Supported Housing Ltd (in voluntary liquidation): 1304504/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 1304504/2023

Between

Mr A MahmoodClaimant

Livingwell Supported Housing Ltd (in voluntary liquidation)Respondent

Before

Employment Judge M Hussain

Not represented for claimant

Not represented for respondent

Date 6 May 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal on grounds of having made a protected disclosure is not well-founded and is dismissed.

[2]The complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure is not well-founded and is dismissed.

[3]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 28 March 2023 and 28 April 2023. The respondent shall pay the claimant £1388.40, which is the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance.

[4]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to mileage expenses is well-founded. The respondent shall pay the claimant £180 as damages for breach of contract.

[5]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date the claimant’s employment ended. The respondent shall pay the claimant £231.66. The claimant is responsible for paying any tax or National Insurance.

[6]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is wellfounded. The respondent shall pay the claimant £445.50 as damages for breach of contract. This figure has been calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant will have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.

[7]When the proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. It is just and equitable to make an award of an amount equal to four weeks’ gross pay. In accordance with section 38 Employment Act 2002 the respondent shall therefore pay the claimant £1782. Approved by: JUDGMENT having been given on 06 May 2025 and the amended written judgment having been sent to the parties on 17 June 2025 and written reasons having been requested in accordance with Rule 60(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, the following reasons are provided:

REASONS

[1]The claimant was employed as a Support Worker, by the respondent, a housing provider, from 28 March 2023 for 4 weeks and 4 days. The claimant started early conciliation with ACAS on 10 May 2023 and obtained an early conciliation certificate on 08 June 2023. He presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal on 08 June 2023. The claimant makes complaints of automatic unfair dismissal on grounds of having made protected disclosures, whistleblowing detriment, arrears of wages, unpaid expenses, notice pay, holiday pay and failure to provide a written statement of employment terms.

[2]The respondent did not present a response to the claim.

[3]At a preliminary hearing on 03 July 2024 this case was heard with the case 1304505/2023 (Mr Ithisham Fiaz). EJ Noons made an order pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules limiting the respondent participation in the proceedings. It was also noted that the respondent was, at that stage, in voluntary liquidation and an order was made for the claim form to be served upon the liquidator.

[4]The claims were discussed with the claimants and were set out in the case summary recorded in the order dated 03 July 2024. The claimant’s claims were recorded as follows: “Mr Mahmood’s claims: 41 . Mr Mahmood started working for the respondent 1 April 2023 and was dismissed by text message on 9 May 2023. He complained they hadn’t paid wages into his account or fuel allowance. He had raised concerns on the computer system about how service users were being treated and also specifically raised concerned about how an individual was illegally evicted. He reported to the office what had happened and was told not to come back into work.42. The respondent did not provide him with a statement of terms and conditions.

43. The respondent also paid him at the wrong rate of pay and only £1000 in total when owed more than that. They refused to let Mr Mahmood record his fuel expenses, so they didn’t pay him what he was owed.

44. The [sic] also did not pay for any accrued but untaken holiday.

45. Mr Mahmood was threatened that people would come to his house because of the issues he had raised. This was threatening behaviour and he says a detriment because of the disclosures he made.”

[5]An agreed list of issues was produced, directions made for witness statements and a bundle, and a final hearing fixed to take place on 02 December 2024.

[6]On 02 December 2024 the claimant did not attend, having contacted the Tribunal on 30 November 2024 indicating that he would not be attending due to work commitments. Mr Fiaz joined the hearing but could only remain until 11:30 despite the hearing being listed for 1 day. The final hearing was postponed to the 22 January 2025. The order made clear that both claimants were required to attend and will need to show the Tribunal that they made protected disclosures, they were dismissed because of those protected disclosures, they suffered the detriment of receiving threats of people being sent round to their homes to do harm because of those protected disclosures, they did not receive pay that was due to them, they did not receive payment in lieu of accrued holiday and that they were not provided with a written statement of employment particulars. It was also explained that they will need to give witness evidence about these points and again were referred to the list of issues that the Tribunal would need to decide.

[7]On 22 January 2025 the claimant again failed to attend. The claimant contacted the Tribunal at 10:59 by email stating that he had to rush to the aid of a family member and requested a postponement. Mr Fiaz did attend the hearing, gave evidence and a judgment was issued on his claims. The claimant’s claims were listed for a final hearing to take place today. An unless order was also made ordering the claimant to submit a schedule of loss.

Hearing

[8]The hearing was conducted by CVP over the course of 1 day. The claimant attended and was not represented. The respondent did not attend, however, the liquidator had contacted the Tribunal informing it that it did not intend on attending and did not have any information for the Tribunal in respect of the claims to be decided, save to say that the claimant had made an application to the Redundancy Payment Service for pay that was owed to him from the National Insurance Fund and the application was refused.

[9]An indexed and paginated bundle had not been sent to the Tribunal, however, there were several documents that had been sent which the claimant relied upon. These documents were as follows:a. An unsigned, undated 2-page witness statement from the claimant detailing his income from employment and losses suffered.

b. A document titled “Section 1A” which consisted of emails between the claimant and the respondent dated 21 March 2023 (10:53 PM) 14 March 2023 (13:01), 27 March 2023 (14:22), 27 March 2023 (14:28) and a letter dated 27 March 2023 addressed to the claimant.

c. A document titled “1A Detriments” which consisted of emails between the claimant and the respondent dated 28 April 2023 (16:54), 06 May 2023 (11:29), 04 May 2023 (14:11), 03 May 2023 (10:13), 02 May 2023 (21:37), 02 May (21:12), 10 May 2023 (13:23), 10 May 2023 (15:18), 08 June (21:11), 10 May 2023 (04:03 PM)

d. Screenshots of text messages with contact “Livingwell”, dated 14 April, 20 April, 28 April, 02 May, 03 May and 09 May 2023.

e. Screenshot of an email from “Livingwell HR” to Ihtisham Fiaz dates 10 May 2023, screenshot of email from Mr Fiaz to “Livingwell HR” dated 10 May 2023, email dated 18 June 2023 from the claimants to the respondents

f. Case Management Agenda and the Case Management Order from the hearing on 03 July 2024.

g. An unsigned and undated 3-page witness statement from the claimant describing circumstances surrounding his employment with the respondent.

h. An unsigned and undated 2-page witness statement from Mr Faiz describing the circumstances surrounding his employment with the respondent.

[10]The claimant confirmed that these were the only documents he was relying on to support his case. List of Issues

[11]The list of issues was discussed with the claimant. He confirmed that he agreed with the list of issues in the order of EJ Noons, save for the fact that he had only been paid £750 by the respondent and not £1000.

[12]The list of issues as recorded in the order was as follows: 1. Unfair dismissal1.1 Was the claimant dismissed?

1.2 Was the reason or principal reason for dismissal that the claimant made a protected disclosure? If so, the claimant will be regarded as unfairly dismissed. 2. Remedy for unfair dismissal

2.1 If there is a compensatory award, how much should it be? The Tribunal will decide:2.1.1 What financial losses has the dismissal caused the claimant?

2.1.2 Has the claimant taken reasonable steps to replace their lost earnings, for example by looking for another job?

2.1.3 If not, for what period of loss should the claimant be compensated?

2.1.4 Is there a chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had been followed, or for some other reason?

2.1.5 If so, should the claimant’s compensation be reduced? By how much?

2.1.6 Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures apply?

2.1.7 Did the respondent or the claimant unreasonably fail to comply with it?

2.1.8 If so is it just and equitable to increase or decrease any award payable to the claimant? By what proportion, up to 25%?

2.1.9 If the claimant was unfairly dismissed, did s/he cause or contribute to dismissal by blameworthy conduct?

2.1.10 If so, would it be just and equitable to reduce the claimant’s compensatory award? By what proportion?

2.1.11 Does the statutory cap of fifty-two weeks’ pay apply?

2.2 What basic award is payable to the claimant, if any?

2.3 Would it be just and equitable to reduce the basic award because of any conduct of the claimant before the dismissal? If so, to what extent? 3. Protected Disclosure

3.1 Did the claimant make one or more qualifying disclosures as defined in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996? The Tribunal will decide:3.1.1 What did the claimant say or write? When? To whom?

3.1.2 Did he disclose information?

3.1.3 Did he believe the disclosure of information was made in the public interest?

3.1.4 Was that belief reasonable?

3.1.5 Did he believe it tended to show that:3.1.5.1 a criminal offence had been, was being or was likely to be committed;

3.1.5.2 a person had failed, was failing or was likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation;

3.1.5.3 the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered;

3.1.5.4 information tending to show any of these things had been, was being or was likely to be deliberately concealed.

3.1.6 Was that belief reasonable?

3.2 If the claimant made a qualifying disclosure, it was a protected disclosure because it was made to the claimant’s employer. If so, it was a protected disclosure. 4. Detriment (Employment Rights Act 1996 section 48)

4.1 Did the respondent do the following things: 4.1.1 Threaten to send people round to the claimant’s house to do him harm

4.2 By doing so, did it subject the claimant to detriment?

4.3 If so, was it done on the ground that he made a protected disclosure? 5. Remedy for Protected Disclosure Detriment

5.1 What financial losses has the detrimental treatment caused the claimant?

5.2 Has the claimant taken reasonable steps to replace their lost earnings, for example by looking for another job?

5.3 If not, for what period of loss should the claimant be compensated?

5.4 What injury to feelings has the detrimental treatment caused the claimant and how much compensation should be awarded for that?

5.5 Has the detrimental treatment caused the claimant personal injury and how much compensation should be awarded for that?

5.6 Is it just and equitable to award the claimant other compensation?

5.7 Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures apply?

5.8 Did the respondent or the claimant unreasonably fail to comply with it?

5.9 If so, is it just and equitable to increase or decrease any award payable to the claimant? By what proportion, up to 25%?

5.10 Did the claimant cause or contribute to the detrimental treatment by their own actions and if so, would it be just and equitable to reduce the claimant’s compensation? By what proportion?

5.11 Was the protected disclosure made in good faith?

5.12 If not, is it just and equitable to reduce the claimant’s compensation? By what proportion, up to 25%? 6. Holiday Pay (Working Time Regulations 1998) 6.1 Did the respondent fail to pay the claimant for annual leave the claimant had accrued but not taken when their employment ended? 7. Unauthorised deductions 7.1 Did the respondent make unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and if so, how much was deducted? 8. Remedy

8.1 How much should the claimant be awarded?

8.2 When these proceedings were begun, was the respondent in breach of its duty to give the claimant a written statement of employment particulars or of a change to those particulars?

8.3 If the claim succeeds, are there exceptional circumstances that would make it unjust or inequitable to make the minimum award of two weeks’ pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002? If not, the Tribunal must award two weeks’ pay and may award four weeks’ pay.

8.4 Would it be just and equitable to award four weeks’ pay?

[13]The list of issues did not include details of the protected disclosures that the claimant was said to have made, and these were clarified with the claimant before hearing the evidence.

[14]The claimant confirmed that he made 4 protected disclosures as follows:

[15]On 02 May 2023 during a face-to-face conversation with Asif (Line Manager and Housing Management Officer) and Tayiba (Shift Leader) the claimant claims that he reported that there were drug dealers attending the property where one of their tenants resided, that there were “ghost bedrooms” where rent was being claimed for tenants that don’t exist and that “bed blocking” was happening where a tenant has moved on, but the system has not been updated thereby preventing homeless people from accessing available properties. He also complained that risk assessments of tenants were not being carried out, that cash was being taken from tenants for service charges for services that were not being provided, that rogue tradesmen were creating bogus certificates for gas and electricity safety checks when the checks had not taken place, and that faulty appliances were left in properties even though the respondent had received monies from the council for new appliances.

[16]On 02 May 2023, during a face-to-face conversation with Prince (Operations Manager) the claimant says that he reported that there were faulty appliances at properties for which tradesman had claimed repairs had been completed when repairs had not been carried out, or where money had been taken from the Council for new appliances which had not been given to tenants.

[17]On 02 May 2023, the claimant says that he sent an email to Asif setting out the disclosures made during the face-to-face conversation.

[18]On 03 May 2023, the claimant says he sent an email to Thanya Khan also detailing the disclosures made to Asif on 02 May 2023.

[19]The claimant confirmed that these were the protected disclosures he was relying on and this was the reason he was dismissed and suffered detriment.

[20]The claimant further clarified that the detriment he was relying on was the email sent by Thanya Khan on 10 May 2023 where he states that she threatened to send the police to his home and would withhold pay if he did not return company equipment.

The law

[21]“Protected disclosure” is defined by section 43A of the 1996 Act: “In this Act a “protected disclosure” means a qualifying disclosure (as defined by section 43B) which is made by a worker in accordance with any of sections 43C to 43H.”

[22]A qualifying disclosure is in turn defined by section 43B: “In this Part a “qualifying disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, is made in the public interest and tends to show one or more of the following—(a) that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed,

(b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject,

(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,

(e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, or

(f) that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed.”

[23]Protection is provided for a worker who makes a "protected disclosure", meaning a qualifying disclosure (as defined in section 43B) in accordance with any of sections 43C to 43H.

[24]In Williams v Brown

UKEAT/0044/19

, in considering the definition of a qualifying disclosure, the EAT noted that: "9. It is worth restating, as the authorities have done many times, that this definition breaks down into a number of elements. First, there must be a disclosure of information. Secondly, the worker must believe that the disclosure is made in the public interest. Thirdly, if the worker does hold such a belief, it must be reasonably held. Fourthly, the worker must believe that the disclosure tends to show one or more of the matters listed in subparagraphs (a) to (f). Fifthly, if the worker does hold such a belief, it must be reasonably held. 10. Unless all five conditions are satisfied there will not be a qualifying disclosure. In a given case any one or more of them may be in dispute, but in every case, it is a good idea for the Tribunal to work through all five. That is for two reasons. First, it will identify to the reader unambiguously which, if any, of the five conditions are accepted as having been fulfilled in the given case, and which of them are in dispute. Secondly, it may assist the Tribunal to ensure, and to demonstrate, that it has not confused or elided any of the elements, by addressing each in turn, setting out in turn out [sic] its reasoning and conclusions in relation to those which are in dispute."

[25]The qualifying disclosure must be a disclosure of information. In practice, many whistle-blowing disclosures raise concerns, or complaints, or make allegations. This does not, however, prevent them from falling within the terms of the section. As Sales LJ observed in Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth

[2018] EWCA Civ 1436

, CA;

[2019] ICR 1850

at para. 35, the question is whether the statement or disclosure in question has “a sufficient factual content and specificity such as is capable of tending to show one of the matters listed in the subsection”. He added that whether this is so “will be a matter for evaluative judgment by a tribunal in the light of all the facts of the case”. A bare statement such as a wholly unparticularised assertion that the employer has infringed health and safety law will plainly not suffice; by contrast, one which also explains the basis for this assertion is likely to do so.

[26]An expression of opinion can convey information (per McDermott v Sellafield Ltd

[2023] IRLR 639

). Whether a document or a statement is to be regarded as making a “disclosure of information” depends on the context and the circumstances in which they are spoken (per Eiger Securities LLP v Miss E Korshunova

[2017] ICR 561

EAT at para 35). Breach of legal obligation

[27]The scope of the term “legal obligation” in s.43B (1)(b) is “broadly drawn” and can include legal obligations arising from a contract of employment (per Parkins v Sodexho Ltd

2002 IRLR 109

, EAT).

[28]In Blackbay Ventures Ltd t/a Chemistree v Gahir

UKEAT/0449/12

, the HHJ Serota held that other than in obvious cases, where a breach of a legal obligation is asserted, “… the source of the obligation should be identified and capable of verification by reference for example to statute or regulation”.

[29]Subsequently, in Eiger Securities LLP v Korshunova

UKEAT/0149/16

the EAT held that the legal obligation “does not have to be detailed or precise but it must be more than a belief that certain actions are wrong. Actions may be considered to be wrong because they are immoral, undesirable or in breach of guidance without being in breach of a legal obligation”.

[30]Most recently, in Twist DX v Armes

UKEAT/0030/20/JOJ

(V) Linden J returned to the issue of disclosures of information. He concluded that it is not necessary that a disclosure of information specifies the precise legal basis of the wrongdoing asserted (para 103). Reasonable belief

[31]A qualifying disclosure must be a disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making it, tends to show that one or more of the six specified types of malpractice, wrongdoing or failure has taken place, is taking place or is likely to take place (section 43B(1).

[32]A worker does not have to prove that the facts or allegations disclosed are true, or that they are capable in law of amounting to one of the categories of wrongdoing listed in the legislation. As long as the worker subjectively believes that the relevant failure has occurred or is likely to occur and their belief is, objectively reasonable. Wall LJ observed, “there is nothing in section 43B(1) which requires the whistleblower to be right” (paragraph 79, Babula v Waltham Forest College

[2007] IRLR 346

(CA).

[33]In determining whether reasonable belief is held by the worker, all the circumstances known to the worker at the time of the disclosure are relevant (Darnton v University of Surrey

[2003] IRLR 133

at [29]). That may require the Tribunal to make a factual assessment of the accuracy of the disclosure, “It is extremely difficult to see how a worker can reasonably believe that an allegation tends to show that there has been a relevant failure if he knew or believed that the factual basis was false, unless there may somehow have been an honest mistake on his part…. The more the worker claims to have direct knowledge of the matters which are the subject of the disclosure, the more relevant will be his belief in the truth of what he says in determining whether he holds that reasonable belief”.

[34]The worker’s subjective belief that the disclosure is in the public interest does not need to be his predominant motive in making it – see Chesterton at [30], Ibrahim v HCA International Limited

[2020] IRLR 224

, CA at [26]. Ibrahim was followed in Dobbie v Felton (t/a Feltons Solicitors)

[2021] IRLR 679

; in that latter case the EAT observed at [27] that whilst motive may be relevant to the assessment of a claimant’s subjective belief, it is not determinative, in the words of the Court of Appeal “it does not dispose of [the issue] altogether.” Public Interest

[35]In Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) and anor v Nurmohamed (Public Concern at Work intervening)

[2018] ICR 731

, CA, the following factors were identified by the Court of Appeal as being relevant to the degree of public interest:a. the numbers in the group whose interests the disclosure served

b. the nature of the interests affected and the extent to which they are affected by the wrongdoing disclosed

c. the nature of the wrongdoing disclosed, and

d. the identity of the alleged wrongdoer. Detriment

[36]In order to bring a claim under section 47B, the worker must have suffered a detriment. In Derbyshire v St. Helens MBC

[2007] UKHL 16

;

[2007] ICR 841

paras. 67-68 Lord Neuberger described the position thus: “67. … In that connection, Brightman LJ said in Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah

[1980] ICR 13

at 31A that “a detriment exists if a reasonable worker would or might take the view that the [treatment] was in all the circumstances to his detriment”. 68. That observation was cited with apparent approval by Lord Hoffmann in Khan

[2001] ICR 1065

, para 53. More recently it has been cited with approval in your Lordships’ House in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary

[2003] ICR 337

. At para 35, my noble and learned friend, Lord Hope of Craighead, after referring to the observation and describing the test as being one of “materiality”, also said that an “unjustified sense of grievance cannot amount to ‘detriment’”. In the same case, at para 105, Lord Scott of Foscote, after quoting Brightman LJ’s observation, added: “If the victim’s opinion that the treatment was to his or her detriment is a reasonable one to hold, that ought, in my opinion, to suffice”.” “On the ground that”

[37]There must be a link between the protected disclosure or disclosures and the act, or failure to act, and the detriment complained of. Section 47B requires that the act should be “on the ground that” the worker has made the protected disclosure.

[38]In Manchester NHS Trust v Fecitt

[2011] EWCA 1190

; the meaning of this phrase was considered by Elias LJ (at para.45): “In my judgment, the better view is that section 47B will be infringed if the protected disclosure materially influences (in the sense of being more than a trivial influence) the employer’s treatment of the whistle-blower.”

[39]In London Borough of Harrow v Knight

[2003] IRLR 10

EAT at [16] the EAT stated, “It is thus necessary in a claim under s.47B to show that the fact that the protected disclosure had been made caused or influenced the employer to act (or not act) in the way complained of: merely to show that ‘but for’ the disclosure the act or omission would not have occurred is not enough (see Khan).”

[40]Elias EJ, in Fecitt and ors v NHS Manchester (Public Concern at Work intervening)

2012 ICR 372

, CA, commented at para 45 that, “section 47B will be infringed if the protected disclosure materially (in the sense of more than trivially) influences the employer’s treatment of the whistleblower”.

[41]It is for the worker to show a prima facie case before the burden of proof shifts to the employer (see Serco Ltd v Dahou

[2017] EWCA Civ 832

[42]For something to be an ‘intervening act’ which breaks the chain of causation, it must become the sole effective cause of the loss, damage or injury suffered such that the prior wrongdoing, whilst it might still be a ‘but for’ cause, has been eclipsed so that it is not an effective or contributory cause anymore (McNicholas v Care and Learning Alliance

[2023] EAT 127

[43]In Kong v Gulf Bank International

[2022] EWCA Civ 941

(when the case progressed to the Court of Appeal), the term used for the issue identified in Devonshire Solicitors and Shinwari v Vue Entertainment

UKEAT/0394/13

was the “separability” of the claimant’s conduct and protected disclosures. The Court held that separability is not a specific legal concept or defence, but rather “it is simply a label which identifies what as a matter of fact was the real reason for impugned treatment” – para [57] per Simler LJ. The Court added: “Were this exercise not permissible, the effect would be that whistleblowers would have immunity for behaviour or conduct related to the making of a protected disclosure no matter how bad, and employers would be obliged to ensure that they are not adversely treated, again no matter how bad the associated behaviour or conduct.” S.103A

[44]Section 103A provides: “An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure.”

[45]“This creates an anomaly with the situation in unfair dismissal where the protected disclosure must be the sole or principal reason before the dismissal is deemed to be automatically unfair. However, … that it is simply the result of placing dismissal for this particular reason into the general run of unfair dismissal law” see Kurzel v Roche Products Ltd

[2008] ICR 799

per Elias J at para 44.

[46]The principle reason for the dismissal is “a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee” (see Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson

[1974] ICR 323

[47]The focus must be on the knowledge, or state of mind, of the person who actually took the decision to dismiss, as, Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti

[2019] UKSC 55

, SC. “by S.103A, Parliament clearly intended to provide that, where the real reason for dismissal was whistleblowing, the automatic consequence should be a finding of unfair dismissal. In searching for the reason for a dismissal, courts need generally look no further than at the reasons given by the appointed decision-maker. …[however] If a person in the hierarchy of responsibility above the employee determines that, for reason A, the employee should be dismissed but that reason A should be hidden behind an invented reason B which the decision-maker adopts, it is the court’s duty to penetrate through the invention rather than to allow it also to infect its own determination.”

[48]The principle of separability applies equally to claims under section 103A as it does to those under section 47B (see Page v Lord Chancellor

[2021] EWCA Civ 54

at paragraph 52). Finding of facts

[49]All findings of fact were made on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal has not dealt with every single matter that was raised in evidence or the documents. The Tribunal has only dealt with matters that it found relevant to the issues to be determined. No application was made to adjourn this hearing in order to complete disclosure or obtain more documents, so the Tribunal has dealt with the case on the basis of the documents produced to it and the claim as set out in the list of issues.

[50]Having considered all the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal makes the following findings of fact on the balance of probabilities. These written findings are not intended to cover every point of evidence given. These findings are a summary of the principal findings the Tribunal made, from which it drew its conclusions.

[51]On 27 March 2023 the claimant was offered employment with the respondent as a Support Worker. The offer letter dated 27 March 2023 described the hours for the position as “casual contracted hours per week” where pay would be at a rate of £11 pounds per hour. The claimant was also offered 28 days holiday per year with the holiday year running from 01 April till 31 March. The offer letter confirmed the start date as 28 March 2023.

[52]The claimant was not issued with a written statement of terms and of employment and started work on 28 March 2023. He signed a digital version of the contract on a tablet on the same date. The claimant’s duties involved carrying out house visits, completing risk assessments and support plans for tenants and dealing with any complaints and issues raised by the tenants. He would record details of his visits by logging into a portal on a tablet or on a computer at the office.

[53]The claimant worked on average 40.5 hours per week and was due a weekly income of £445.50.

[54]The claimant was required to keep mileage sheets to claim fuel expenses. He no longer had access to the mileage sheets but believes that he is owed between £35 and £40 fuel costs per week.

[55]Within a week or two of working for the respondent the claimant started to notice matters which concerned him, and these included evicting a tenant without notice, failure to carry out risk assessments, failure to ensure that gas safety and electricity safety checks was certified, failing to complete repairs of appliances in tenants homes whilst falsely recording that repairs had been completed, taking cash from tenants as service charges and not providing services, such as carrying out repairs and cutting the grass, having ghost rooms for tenants that did not exist, and bed blocking by keeping beds for tenants that were no longer living there and not updating DWP and HMRC or Birmingham City Council so that they can be offered to homeless people. He also noticed that vulnerable tenants were being placed in properties where there was a high risk of harm to them. The claimant recorded the outcome of his visits on the portal.

[56]Around 20 April 2023, the claimant’s tablet was taken from him by the respondent who informed the claimant that the tablet was faulty. The claimant was advised that it would be returned to him once it had been mended but, in the meantime, he had to return to the office to complete his visit records at a computer in the office.

[57]On one occasion the claimant recorded details of an eviction where a tenant was evicted without notice. The claimant believes that after noting this, his colleagues at the office Tayiba and Mariam stopped having communication with him and isolated him. He was also subjected to regular checks by way of texts asking him where he was an what he was doing.

[58]During the week commencing 22 April 2023 Tayiba and her colleagues made complaints about the claimant to the respondent which the claimant described as “slander and false allegations to discriminate me” (email from the claimant to the respondent dated 04 May 2023 14:11). On 28 April 2023, the respondent sent an email to the claimant stating that it required 3 working days to “review the above” and come back to the claimant with an outcome (email from respondent to claimant dated 28 April 2023 16:54).

[59]The review related to allegations made by colleagues against the claimant and potentially any complaints made by the claimant of bullying and harassment. The review did not relate to any claimed protected disclosures.

[60]No further work was offered to the claimant after 28 April 2023, and the claimant was dismissed.

[61]The claimant did not have any face-to-face conversations with his colleagues Tayiba, Thanya, Arif or Prince on 02 May 2023.

[62]On 02 May 2023 the claimant sent an email to the respondent stating “I have spoken to your in-house management team who have confirmed I have been discriminated, bullied by individuals who have slandered me to Asif and yourself where no swift action had taken place on the day. A targeted attack by individuals who had covered up oppressive practices and put vulnerable individuals’ lives at risk in property’s where they placed drug dealers, criminals amongst women and men raising complaints to Prince and Tayiba”. The claimant then goes on to list his complaints against the respondent which include failure to carry out risk assessments by management, putting vulnerable victims in shared accommodation where complaints had been raised of high levels of harm, failure to respond to tenants complaints, housing support officers being targeted by tenants, an incident where the claimant had been sent to a house with no risk assessments had been carried out and a serious incident had occurred and complaints were also made about colleagues Prince, Tayiba, Mariam and Asif. These disclosures lack factual detail and specificity and fail to identify the basis of the assertions.

[63]On 02 May 2023 at 21:37 the claimant sent a further email to the respondent stating, “I missed something off the review in process” and the continues to make complaints about housing benefits being charged for ghost rooms and bed blocks which were not being addressed.

[64]On 03 May 2023 at 10:13 the claimant sent an email to the respondent complaining about Tayiba, Asif, Mariam and Prince and their failure to record, action and report complaints made by tenants which amounted to criminal activity, failure to carry out risk assessments, failure to support tenants, failure to follow upon reports filed with Birmingham City Council and causing health risks and contamination in properties where faulty appliances were provided to tenants.

[65]The comments and complaints made by the claimant in his emails on 02 and 03 May 2023 do not amount to qualifying protected disclosures as these disclosures lack factual detail and specificity and fail to identify the basis of the assertion as explained in the reasons given later.

[66]On 04 May 2023 at 14:11 the claimant sent an email to the respondent where he states, “Please provide an update relating to the three day review process related to the alleged claims by Tayiba and her colleagues. There needs to a full investigation with witness statements and evidence related to the slander and false allegations to discriminate me without factual evidence. I’ve sent Messages to Asif to address my statement on the day of bullying and toxic behaviour which left me very upset. Hi Asif, it’s day 5 the review related to the bullying and discrimination practises carried out by Tayiba where Tany Khan has not responded. I would like you to investigate the bullying, discrimination by a team leader who slandered me with her colleagues”. The claimant goes on to say that there was a toxic environment and toxic culture amongst team leaders and asks for his statements relating to slander and discrimination be recorded. He also flags that his wages have not yet been paid.

[67]On 06 May 2023 the claimant sent an email to the respondent where he enquires when he will return to work as he has missed a week of work. He also states that he had not received any correspondence related to the discrimination and bullying that he faced from his colleagues and requests counselling for this. The claimant mentions an illegal eviction of one of the tenants and false data being provided to benefits agencies and requests that the respondent speak to support workers to ensure that health safety concerns are recorded and addressed.

[68]On 10 May 2023 at 13:23 the claimant sent an email to the respondent where he asks when he can return to work and why wages have not been paid. He raises issues in relation to tenants being put at risk by Tayiba and that housing officers will need to print off stock take and evictions carried out at 2 properties.

[69]On 10 May 2023 at 15:18 the claimant sent an email to the respondent where he states that he had been informed by Asif that same day that he no longer works for the respondent. He makes reference to the respondent investigating him and complains that Tayiba deleted data off a live screen. He also mentions that he would like to raise a grievance and goes on to state that his grievance is related to whistleblowing with regards to the respondent falsifying documentation sent to housing providers and Birmingham City Council. He makes further complaints subject to the grievance, ending the email by stating that he will add to his grievance and whistleblowing complaints and requests copies of policies on whistleblowing, bullying and discrimination in the workplace.

[70]On 10 May 2023 at 4:03 PM the claimant sent an email to the respondent where he states, “Please ensure you have read my grievance and legal documents for the remedy. ACAS will be in touch around my wages and threats made to remove me from work with false allegations, intimidation, harassment. Please forward my wage slip.”

[71]An email was sent to Ihtisham Fiaz by the respondent on 10 May 2023 stating that the failure to return company property has been reported to the police. The respondent then invites Mr Fiaz to attend a grievance meeting with HR. Mr Fiaz responded to the respondent asking the grievance meeting to be put hold until he has spoken to the police.

[72]The claimant was not dismissed because he made protected disclosures. The principal reason for the decision to dismiss was made as a result of complaints made against the claimant. The claimant did not suffer any detriment as he was not threatened by the respondent.

[73]Arrears of wages and fuel payments had accrued. There were also previous emails and text messages requesting both fuel expenses and pay. The claimant worked on average 40.5 hours per week and was due to be paid £11 per hour. The claimant worked 4 weeks and 4 days. The daily pay rate is £89.10 and weekly pay is £445.50. The total pay for 4 weeks and 4 days amounts to £2138.40. A payment of £750 has already been made, therefore the total amount that remains outstanding is £1388.40.

[74]The claimant is entitled to fuel expenses which had not been paid by the respondent. The total amount due to the claimant is £180.

[75]The claimant is entitled to £445.50 notice pay.

[76]The claimant worked 4.8 week and accrued 2.6 days annual leave which he did not take. The claimant is entitled to £231.66.

[77]The respondent failed to provide written statement of employment particulars, and the claimant is awarded the sum of £1782. Reasons for findings of facts and conclusions Protected disclosures

[78]The claimant, in his evidence, stated that he logged details of complaints raised by tenants on the portal such as any issues that they had with appliances. He would also record whether or not tenants were living at the property. He initially recorded this information on a tablet that was issued to him and when that tablet was taken away, he recorded it on the portal via a computer at the respondent’s offices. The claimant did not go on to provide details of when this information was added to the portals or how it was raised with management, save to say that review meetings would take place where management would review the data recorded. He did not elaborate further on the data recorded in evidence or in either of his witness statements.

[79]The claimant gave evidence that on 02 May 2023 he had a face-to-face discussion with Mariam and Asif about being put at risk by attending tenant’s properties alone, where there was a risk of tenants assaulting support workers. The claimant gave evidence that he requested support after an incident where a tenant did not allow him to leave the property. He explained that the respondent said it would take it the matter on board. He believes the matter was addressed as when he went round on the next occasion the tenant was more pleasant.

[80]The claimant said he also had a face-to-face conversation with Prince on 02 May 2023 after he spoke with Mariam and Asif and complained that there were properties where tenants had faulty appliances that were recorded as being repaired when they had not and that did not have gas and electricity safety certificates. He also told Prince that tenants were paying cash for service charges where the services were not being delivered, such as grass being cut or a faulty shower being repaired.

[81]The claimant, in his oral evidence, went on to say that on 28 April 2023 he had a face-to-face conversation with Thanya and Asif around “overall practices” and the toxic environment in the office where he was being isolated. He also stated that he gave Thanya examples of what was happening at tenant’s properties although he did not go on to elaborate on this further in his oral evidence. The claimant further stated that these were HR issues and as HR Manager, Thanya could resolve them. The claimant claims that the email dated 28 April 2023 sent by Thanya after the meeting was sent in response to complaints that he had raised which would be investigated.

[82]The Tribunal queried with the claimant the dates of the conversations he had with Asif, Mariam and Prince as these appear to have taken place after he was sent home on 28 April 2023. At this point the claimant stated that he could not recall the exact dates of the conversations with Asif, Mariam and Prince and believed they would have taken place 3-4 days before the meeting on 28 April 2023. The claimant does not mention any of these conversations in either of his witness statements. In his ET1 he mentions that he was unfairly dismissed on 26 April 2023 when raising a grievance and whistleblowing in relation to his work. In the ET1 he further stated that he had provided a 4-page document related to “work related issues” and non-payment of wages, a document which has not been produced to the Tribunal.

[83]The claimant further asserted that he made a protected disclosure on 03 May 2023 by email to the respondent. Disclosure 1: 02 May 2023 conversation with Asif and Mariam

[84]The claimant gave evidence that he had a conversation with Mariam and Asif about him being put at risk when attending properties alone and he asserts that he raised this matter to flag that there was a risk to his health and safety. In this conversation he referred to a specific incident where a tenant had prevented him from leaving the property.

[85]This is not the conversation he described at the beginning of this hearing when setting out the nature of the protected disclosures that he made. He described a conversation with Asif and Tayiba where he reported a number of matters which did not include his health and safety being put at risk by attending properties alone. The conversation he now describes in his evidence is one which he had with Asif and Mariam about a different matter altogether.

[86]The claimant conceded that could not recall when the conversation took place as the conversation took place over 2 years ago, however, it is also now apparent from his evidence that he cannot recall exactly whom he had the conversation with and what the nature of that conversation was. During the course of this hearing, the claimant has changed his case as to whom he had the conversation with, what was disclosed during that conversation and when that conversation took place. The Tribunal finds the claimant’s memory to be unreliable in respect on this conversation and there is no documentary evidence to support his assertion that a conversation took place as described in the list of issues above.

[87]Further, the Tribunal finds that claimant did not return to work after 28 April 2023 and therefore, did not have a face-to face conversation with Mariam, Tayiba or Asif about the complaints raised in his email dated 02 May 2023. This is confirmed by the oral evidence of the claimant who stated that he did not go into work after 28 April 2023. This is also supported by the contents of his 3-page witness statement where he states, “I was called into a meeting on 28th April 2024 [sic] where Thanya and Asif removed my work computer and complaints raised by clients and terminated my employment contract whilst failing to address outcomes in 3 working days”. This is further supported by the contents of the email from 06 May 2023 where the claimant comments “I have missed a week of work…”. The Tribunal is satisfied that the complainant did not return to work after 28 April 2023 and did not have conversations with colleagues on 02 May 2023. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the claimant did not have a face-to-face conversation with Asif and Tayiba on 02 May 2023 and so did not make disclosures as claimed. Disclosure 2: 02 May 2023 conversation with Prince

[88]For the reasons in paragraphs 86 to 87, the Tribunal also finds that the claimant did not have had a face-to-face conversation with Prince on 02 May 2023 where he reported that there were faulty appliances at properties for which tradesman had claimed repairs had been completed when repairs had not been carried out, or where money had been taken from the Council for new appliances which had not been given to tenants.

[89]Further, there is no corroborating evidence to support the claimant’s assertion that this conversation took place with Prince. In the emails that the claimant sent to the respondent, the claimant does not make reference to this conversation. In his 3-page witness statement, the claimant refers to Prince as a “Lieutenant who was making threats to tenants and employees”, not that he had failed to deal with reports of faulty appliances. In the emails dated 02 May 2023 at 21:12 and 03 May 2023 at 10:13 the claimant repeatedly states that tenants made complaints to Prince which were not actioned but does not mention that he himself has raised any complaints with Prince. In view of the claimant’s unreliable memory and the lack of corroborative documentary evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that a conversation took place between Prince and the claimant where he raised issues about faulty appliances and gas and electricity safety certificates. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the claimant did not make disclosures to Prince on 02 May 2023 as claimed.

[90]In addition to this the claimant claims that the 3-day review referred to in the email from 28 April 2023, refers to a review of the whistleblowing complaints that he raised in the days prior to the meeting on 28 April 2023. This is not supported by the evidence submitted by the claimant. The email of 28 April 2023 states “can you give me 3 days to review the above….” from which it can be inferred that there was either an attachment to that email or the email was part of a chain or that there may have been additional information in the subject field. However, when this was raised with the claimant by the Tribunal during his oral evidence the claimant accepted that he had not produced the material the email referred to but asserted that it referred to his whistleblowing claims. The claimant did not offer any explanation as to why he decided not to produce an email which he claims contained details of him formally raising whistleblowing complaints, particularly when he has been able to produce other email correspondence.

[91]The claimant’s assertion that the matter that was subject to review was his whistleblowing claims is contradicted by the emails the claimant relies upon. 02 May 2023 the claimant sent an email to the respondent stating “Thanya can you ensure you print off the log and data off the tablet given to Tayiba my team leader for the review process related to alleged allegations created by the individuals. I have spoken to your in-house management team who have confirmed I have been discriminated, bullied by individuals who have slandered me to Asif and yourself where no swift action had taken place on the day”. It can be inferred from this email that complaints were made by the claimant’s colleagues against the claimant and the raising of these complaints, he believed amounted to discrimination and bullying.

[92]On 04 May 2023 the claimant sent an email stating “Please provide an update relating to the three day review process related to the alleged claims made by Tayiba and her colleagues. There needs to be a full investigation with witness statements and evidence related to slander and false allegations to discriminate me without factual evidence”. The e-mail goes on to state “Hi Asif it’s day 5 of the review related to the bullying and discrimination practises carried out by Tayiba where Thanya Khan has not responded. I would like you to investigate the bullying, discrimination by a team leader who slandered me with her colleagues”. This email more clearly states that the review is related complaints raised by Tayiba and her colleagues against the claimant. Further, the claimant’s main concern appears to be the investigation of his bullying and discrimination claims and not any whistleblowing complaints as described in the list of issues and his pleadings. This is supported by the email from 06 May 2023 where the claimant states “I have missed a week of work without any notification and correspondence related to direct discrimination and bullying by my colleagues”. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the review referred to in the email from 28 April 2023 relates to complaints made against the claimant and not any whistleblowing complaints the claimant claims to have raised.

[93]The first time that the claimant mentions whistleblowing or a grievance is in the email from 10 May 2023 at 15:18. In this email the claimant states “I would will like to raise a grievance related to the phone call and dishonestly from Asif your team…..Grievance is related to a whistle blowing protocol with LW linked to falsifying legal documents sent to housing provides Birmingham City Council…”. The claimant then goes on to detail other complaints against the respondent that he believes amount to whistleblowing.

[94]The email correspondence from 02 May 2023 till 10 May 2023 demonstrates that the review related to complaints made against the claimant and he only made disclosures on and after 02 May 2023. The Tribunal finds that the claimant did not make verbal disclosures on 02 May 2023 to his colleagues Prince, Asif, Tayiba or Mariam. Disclosure 3: emails of 02 May 2023

[95]In the email of 02 May 2023, the claimant makes a number of complaints and comments about the general practices of the respondent. The Tribunal has considered whether the email discloses information that has a sufficient factual content capable of tending to show that there is danger to the health and safety of an individual, that a criminal offence has been committed or that there has been a breach of legal obligation.

[96]The claimant initially refers to his alleged ill treatment by colleagues complaining that they have bullied him. He then makes comments stating, “A targeted attack by individuals who had covered up oppressive practices and put vulnerable individuals life’s at risk in property’s where they placed drug dealers, criminals amongst women and men raising complaints to Prince and Tayiba”. The claimant does not go on to explain what the targeted attack is, which individuals were involved, what the oppressive practices were or how they were covered up. This disclosure lacks any specificity, and it is not clear what the claimant is complaining about, whether it is a “targeted attack” on a specific person, whether “oppressive practices are being covered up” or how properties are selected when an individual is placed at properties. There is insufficient information to determine the basis of these assertions.

[97]The claimant goes on to say “Vulnerable individuals thrown out on the streets where no incidents recorded and evicted without any prior notice. High levels of crimes reported to Prince and Tyaiba where they failed to dial 999 where drugs had been reported by housing officer. Sending support workers in properties where no risk assessments carried out by management. Vulnerable victims placed in shared accommodation where complaints raised of high levels of harm evidenced by housing officers”. The claimant makes these complaints without providing any context by way of specifying details of when these incidents took place, which tenants were involved or what harm has taken place.

[98]The email then states, “Four LW employees in the office where staff member harassed and targeted a tenant who was called a “Mother F..ker in a Mirpuri accent and different language. This LW employee continued to target a victim who needed support to address his housing where she continued to target him and continued to abuse him in front of her colleagues and management team. Phone call recorded with Tyaiba and Prince relating to a tenant requesting Birmingham City a council bidding account and legal documents. The vulnerable tenants had raised the complaints with Birmingham City Council housing related to shared accommodation. This was shared with Prince and Tyaiba on LW systems where individuals had called LW office phone lines and they failed to support. The LW tenants raised concerns of Pakistani and Asian men turning up to properties and made threats to have them evicted from property’s without support provided in the homes. Money taken off them for service charges with services provided in the shared accommodation. Stock take evidence and support plans data recorded with Mariam team leader. Tenants raised serious concerns to Tyaiba and Prince around ex tenants entering property’s to bag up drugs where LW failed to repair locks and property’s during evictions. Stock take data evidence. Housing support officer targeted by tenants several times and told to return back to the property where he was threatened”.

[99]These complaints continue to vaguely describe incidents where the claimant gives opinions about the general conduct of others, such as saying that a victim was “targeted” and “abused” without detailing who this individual is or the conduct he believed amounted targeted behaviour or abuse. Some of the comments appear to be narrative such as complaints being raised by tenants with Birmingham City Council. The claimant makes allegations that his colleagues failed to support tenants but does not say what support was required or which tenant required support. These opinions and allegations are not specific enough to convey facts.

[100]Further in his email, the claimant states “I myself was targeted by drug dealers who had trapped me in the kitchen and my team leader Mariam had contacted the tenants to undermine me in front of my colleagues and put me at further risk. I was sent to the same house where no risks assessments carried out and a serious incident was reported to Tayiba who failed to take action putting tenants life’s at risk. Mariam had a unprofessional relationship with the tenant stating I was new at the job and I did not know what I was doing. Mariam was told an incident had occurred and failed to support me and record her conversation she had with a tenants who had threatened me and blocked me in a kitchen where no LW staff supported me. Asif management who was aware of the serious incident did not record no incident and placed me in a office and carried out bullying tactics to apologise to Mariam who had put me in further danger by discussing confidential data with a violent tenant. The tenant named Asif has had no support from LW for some time and expressed his mental health and depression linked to individuals place in his home that had caused him further anxiety’s reported to Tayiba and Asif”.

[101]In this instance the claimant appears to be referring to 2 different incidents, one where he says he was put at risk and one where he says a tenant’s life was put at risk, in respect of which, no further details were provided. The incident where he says he was put at risk may be a disclosure of information as it appears this is incident that he has previously on another occasion raised with management. Whilst the claimant has not specified the dates of the incident, the properties or individuals involved it is a matter which the respondent is aware of. In oral evidence the claimant stated that this matter was addressed by management as he attended the same property on another occasion with a colleague, and this time the tenant was more pleasant, and he was able to assist the tenant with getting a job. It appears this matter was raised and appropriately addressed before 02 May 2023 as the claimant had revisited the property before his last working day on 28 April 2023. In this context, it is not clear why the claimant believes that he was not supported by Mariam, when he has given oral evidence at the hearing that he believes action was taken whereby he was accompanied by a colleague when he re-visited the property and the tenant presented in a pleasant way. Even though this matter was raised again on 02 May 2023, the claimant did not believe it tended to show wrongdoing as the he believed the matter had been resolved.

[102]The claimant, in the email, does not specify how he was undermined in front of his colleagues by Mariam and how that put him at risk. This complaint appears to be directed at his colleague’s conduct. He goes on to make a further complaint about Mariam stating she had an unprofessional relationship with a tenant, she failed to support him after the incident when he had been blocked in a kitchen and that she discussed confidential data with a violent tenant. He does not elaborate on the nature of the relationship or why, in his opinion, he believes it to be unprofessional. He does not state what support he expected from Mariam after the incident and does not detail what confidential data was disclosed and what that put him at risk of. The second incident is equally vague and does not detail what serious incident occurred.

[103]He concludes his email by stating, in the penultimate paragraph, “Thanya can you ensure you review the data recorded on LW tablet where your management team have slandered me and caused mischief by covering up serious harmful practices”.

[104]The email from 02 May 2023 21:37 makes a further 4 general complaints which lack sufficient detail such as times, dates, names of individuals involved. He states “I missed something off the review in process. Tenants raised serious complaints of ghost rooms and no tenants in shared accommodation. Where strangers entering and leaving property’s. Data shared by housing officer and support officer where housing benefits being charged for ghost rooms not reported to Birmingham City council. Tenant raised bed blocks causing her anxiety where Tayiba had recorded the complaint and failed to address the complaints with photo evidence and stock take given to Asif. Empty properties used to generate housing benefits from HMRC where ghost tenants not living In property’s and no support work carried out with ghost rooms. Thanya can you ensure you address this on your audit paper work to ensure safety of tenants and risk assessments match your audit paper work”.

[105]These complaints again do not convey facts and are a series of allegations that lack sufficient factual content and specificity to be capable of showing a relevant failure. If there were empty properties where tenants had moved on without informing the respondent, which are then visited by the claimant he would need to report them by way of updating the portal which would then be reviewed by management. The claimant confirmed that he did update the portal, and the matters were due for review. These are matters that, in all likelihood, arise in the normal course of business. It is not obvious how tenants are put at risk if there are “ghost rooms” or “ghost tenants”.

[106]The Tribunal finds there is insufficient factual content and specificity for these disclosures to amount disclosure of information. Disclosure 4: email from 03 May 2023

[107]The email from 03 May 2023 continues to make allegations in the same way where the complaints lack detail.

[108]He states “Thanya Khan can you ensure the housing officer and Tyaiba recorded all the complaints related to the HMO tennants linked to crime, damaged to properties, drug dealers suppling drugs from your properties and bagging up, strangers walking into properties where locks have been removed, stolen property and burglary reported to Tayiba who failed to support tenant where lock was reported damaged through internal systems, LW staff threatening tenants during evictions, Tennant Parvaz threatened by neighbours which was reported to Asif and Prince no records of incident logs or crime reported on 101 to police, Smashed up properties linked to drug crimes and violence not reported on 101 calls and the police where tenants threatened, Team leaders failing to attend properties to carry out risk assessments on ghost properties and bed blocks, Tenants wrongly placed with mental health and depression with drug dealers and drug addicts, no complaints or housing reports recorded by Asif and Tyaiba where tenants are to afraid to access living space, women placed with domestic violence tenants to afraid to share space, support workers and housing officers recorded complaints where team leaders laughed them off and talked in Mirpuri language by using internal systems, LW employees carrying out checks not supported during violence incidents and threats made by violent and aggressive drug dealers living in properties, Money taken of tenants for service charges where no service charges provided in properties, Repairs and damage in properties not repaired when reporting matters to Prince and Tayiab, gas supplies turned off at properties where faulty cookers and appliances supplied which are a health hazard to life, No electrical checks or certificates supplied to tenants who have complained of electrical faults, water leaks and floods in properties, damaged glass and properties with high levels of dam reported to Mariam who stated F.cuk that nothing to do with me, women fleeing from domestic violence placed with criminals and ex offenders at high risk reported to Asif, Tayaiba, Prince, Mariam, faulty appliances provided to tenants such as the fridge not working causing health risks and contamination in properties, strangers entering properties supplying drugs where tenants have reported matters to Tayaiba, Asif, Mariam, Prince no follow up work carried out with tenants or reports filed with Birmingham City Council, West Midlands police, and the housing providers plans and legal documents, housing officers and support workers recorded evidence with team leaders with stock take records. Thanya Khan, please let me know when the review is completed in order to record the tenants views, wishes, and feelings related to the above and there housing packs. I evidenced the above with Asif, Tyayiba, and Prince where the housing officers and support workers have provided the data and evidence too”.

[109]The claimant simply lists the complaints without giving any context by reference to dates, places, people involved or what the transgression is. Whilst opinions and allegations can amount to the disclosure of information, in this case, they do not as the claimant’s complaints lack the factual detail to infer the basis of the assertions.

[110]The claimant refers to a tenant Parvaz who informed the respondent that he had been threatened by a neighbour. The complaint appears to relate to the respondent failing to report the matter separately to the police. In such circumstances, the expectation is that victim reports any crimes against then to the police. On the face of it, this may have amounted to a breach of policy, but is not obvious that this amounts to a breach of a legal obligation.

[111]The claimant’s complaints are about the lack of follow up work with tenants and other agencies by the respondent in respect of matters reported on the portal. However, the claimant also understands that there is going to be a review where the tenants and the housing packs will be consulted. He appears to be summarising the matters he has encountered on his visits and asking Thanya to review matters. From this complaint it can be deduced that the claimant is expressing an opinion that colleagues were not doing their jobs by following up on reports on the portal and this needs to be reviewed. The complaints about the incidents lack detail and specificity as the main focus of the email is the lack of action by colleagues on matters that were reported to them and Thanya reviewing the position. This is also supported by the fact that the claimant, in oral evidence, stated that when he was raising the matters orally with Thanya, he gave her some examples of what was happening when he was going into tenant’s properties, and he also made disclosures about the toxic environment. The claimant went on to state that he did this because Thanya is HR and he was asking for support to help him in the workplace to overcome issues that he was facing.

[112]For these reasons, the Tribunal finds there is insufficient factual content and specificity for these disclosures to amount disclosure of information. Reasonable belief about wrongdoing/ Reasonable belief in the public interest

[113]Whilst the Tribunal finds that the claimant did not make disclosures of information, the Tribunal went on to consider whether, at the time, the claimant held a reasonable belief that the information disclosed tends to show one of the relevant failure or acts of wrongdoing and whether the disclosures were made in the public interest.

[114]In his role as a support worker the claimant was required to carry out tasks including completing risk assessments, preparing support plans for tenants after completing house visits. In his undated 3-page statement he states he completed “50 risk assessments, 50 support plans, 50 house visits” during the course of his employment. In his oral evidence, he stated that he would input details of his visits on a portal via an iPad or computer belonging to the respondent. It was then the responsibility of the respondent’s management team to hold regular review meetings and address the issues raised by support workers.

[115]The claimant did not mention the review meetings in either of his witness statements, and in his oral evidence, he confirmed that he raised all the ongoing tenant issues via logging the details in the portal. He stated that he noticed a change in attitude towards him by colleagues after recoding details of the evictions. In his oral evidence, he states that he raised the concerns orally on 02 May 2023 and then in writing on the same day.

[116]The Tribunal also considers the disclosures in the context that the claimant’s role required him to carry out risk assessments, support tenants and log any complaints raised. If this is the data that he collected when attending properties, then he has done his job by raising them as matters that require the attention of management. His job is also to record whether tenants are still living at the property, the issues that they are having with the appliances, if services have not been delivered, whether there are people on the property that are putting others at risk. His job is also to carry out risk assessments and provide support. If he has reported this, then this is a task of his role. This is supported by the comment that he makes asking Thanya to ensure these matters are noted on their audit paperwork. This is also supported by his earlier evidence where stated “these are HR issues”. On the face of it, the claimant was actioning tasks in line with his role and responsibilities.

[117]It is within this context that the Tribunal considers what the reasonable belief of the claimant was at that time.

[118]The Tribunal notes that the claimant was employed for a short period of time by the respondent and it is feasible that a review meeting may not have taken place within that time, or if it had, there may not have been sufficient time to respond to or action some of the issues noted by the claimant. It may be possible that management had actioned some of the complaints, but the claimant was not aware, as was the case with the tenant the claimant revisited after being prevented from leaving. The claimant was not employed long enough to know how management intended to deal with the issues or whether they were being dealt with or had been dealt with.

[119]The claimant gave evidence that, when he made the disclosures, he believed that the respondent was in breach of health and safety law in failing to protect tenants, that tenants’ safety was being put at risk and the respondent failed to comply with legal obligations by failing to carry out risk assessments and breaching data protection regulations. He gave evidence that he also believed that the respondent was falsifying records and so committing criminal offences. The claimant went on to say that he felt like he had a duty of care to protect and safeguard his colleagues and tenants.

[120]This is not supported by the contemporaneous evidence that the claimant relies upon. Whilst there is some reference to safety of tenants, the main concern appears to be lack of proper recording of issues for audit purposes and failure to respond in a timely manner and appropriate manner to the issues raised by tenants.

[121]In the email from 02 May 2023 21:12 the claimant makes reference to the covering up of harmful practices but does not go on to state that whether those harmful practices amount to criminal offending, breach of health and safety regulations or failure to comply with a legal obligation. Whilst it is not necessary that a disclosure of information specifies the precise legal basis of the wrongdoing asserted, there must be more than a belief that certain actions are wrong. Even if the claimant’s comments about the safety of vulnerable tenants shows that the claimant held a belief that tends to show a breach of a legal obligation or a risk to health and safety, there are insufficient facts within the disclosures to convey the nature of the breach. In his emails from 02 May 2023 at 21:12, the claimant states “I have spoken to your in-house management team who have confirmed I have been discriminated, bullied by individuals who have slandered me to Asif and yourself where no swift action had taken place on the day. A targeted attack by individuals who had covered up oppressive practices and put vulnerable individuals life’s at risk in property's where they placed drug dealers, criminals amongst women and men raising complaints to Prince and Tyaiba”. Whilst the claimant mentions that vulnerable people’s lives were at risk, the point the claimant is conveying is that he was the subject of a “targeted attack by individuals”. The claimant does not refer to a specific incident and makes a general comment about people’s lives being at risk that he does not elaborate upon. It is not immediately obvious whether the claimant believes the wrongdoing is “the targeted attack”, of the “covering up of oppressive practices” or Prince and Tayiba’s decision regarding placement of tenants and whether that is competence issue or a breach of legal obligation. The Tribunal has considered this in conjunction with the claimant’s concluding comments in that email where he states “Thanya can you ensure you review the data recorded on LW tablet where your management team have slandered me and caused mischief by covering up serious harmful practices” and his oral evidence where he believed it was an HR issue. The complaints in his email from 02 May 2023 21:12 refer to how his colleagues handled their responsibilities. This is also the case with the email from 03 May 2023. In his email dated 03 May 2023 the claimant concludes his email by saying “please let me know when the review is completed in order to record the tenant's views, wishes, and feelings related to the above and there housing packs”. From which it can again be inferred that the recording of the issues is the claimants concern rather than any criminal offending, breach of legal obligation or risk to health and safety. This demonstrates that the claimant was complaining about his colleague’s performance and conduct towards him and that the belief held at the time that these comments tended to show that his colleagues were not doing their job and had mistreated him.

[122]It is only in his emails dated 06 May 2023 and 10 May 2023 that he first makes general allegations of falsifying records. In his email dated 10 May 2023 15:18 claimant for the first time mentions that he is raising a grievance, stating that he would “like to raise a grievance related to the phonecall and dishonestly from Asif and your team”. He further states he is raising a grievance and is whistleblowing “…linked to falsifying documents”. He does not mention that he is whistleblowing in relation to the health and safety of any of the staff or tenants but continues to complain about his colleague’s conduct. This demonstrates that, in the claimant’s mind, he did not believe, when he raised the matters on 02 May and 03 May 2023, that he was pursuing a grievance or whistleblowing complaints in relation to breach of health and safety law. He makes a new allegation of falsifying records in his emails from 06 May and 10 May 15:18 and considers that as a whistleblowing complaint.

[123]For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the claimant did not hold a genuine belief that the disclosures tended to show there was a breach of health and safety law or criminal conduct when making disclosures on 02 and 03 May 2023.

[124]As the claimant did not hold a genuine belief that the disclosures tended to show there was a breach of health and safety law, breach of legal obligation or criminal conduct when making disclosures on 02 and 03 May 2023, the Tribunal also finds that the claimant did not reasonably believe that the disclosures were being made in the public interest. This is supported by the fact that claimant did not raise the complaints directly with the managers until after he was made the subject of an investigation because of complaints made by colleagues. He only raised the matters as a formal grievance and whistleblowing complaints on 10 May 2023 after it was confirmed that he was no longer employed by the respondent. The claimants’ complaints have continued to evolve over the course of proceedings where further allegations have been made, and pertinent details of meetings and conversations the claimant had with the respondents about disclosures, frequently changing leading to inconsistencies in his account rendering his evidence unreliable. The claimant’s account that he prepared a 4 page -document detailing his disclosures and that is what the 3 day review was referring to is implausible in light of the email correspondence he has decided to produce which shows that the review related to allegations made against him. The claimant’s evidence is therefore not credible. The claimant has made complaints against his colleagues in response to his colleagues making complaints against him and they were pursued because the claimant felt that he had been bullied by his colleagues.

[125]In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that disclosures 1 and 2 were not made as described and that disclosures 2 and 3 did not disclose information as they lacked sufficient factual content and specificity. Even if the disclosures did disclose information, the Tribunal finds that the claimant did not hold a genuine belief that the information tended to show criminal conduct, a breach of legal obligation, or a breach of health and safety law and the disclosures were not made in the public interest. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the disclosures do not qualify as protected disclosures. Automatic unfair dismissal

[126]The claimant asserts that he a dismissed because he made protected disclosures. If the disclosures were protected, which the Tribunal has found they are not, the reason for dismissal could not have been because of the 4 communications in which he states disclosures were made.

[127]The claimant in his ET1, states that he was dismissed on 26 April 2023 by way of a phone call at 16:12. In his 3-page witness statement he states that he was called to a meeting on 28 April where Thanya and Asif removed his work computer and terminated his employment contract. In the same statement he states, “28th April 2023 the fraudsters terminated my fulltime employment contract…” In his 2-page witness statement, the claimant claims that his employment period was from 28 March 2023 to 30 May 2023. In oral evidence the claimant initially stated his employment ended on 10 May 2023 but then went on to say that he did not know when his employment ended but did not go back in to work after 28 April 2023.

[128]The email informing the claimant that the respondent required 3 working days to carry out a review, was sent on Friday 28 April 2023. The claimant, in oral evidence, stated that he expected to be added to the rota but was not allocated any hours after 28 April 2023. Further, in his email dated 10 May 2023 15:18 he writes that when he spoke to his colleague Asif, he was told that he does not work for the respondent. The claimant has not produced any written evidence demonstrating that he was dismissed by the respondent and now cannot recall when his employment was terminated.

[129]As there is no contemporaneous evidence, the Tribunal has considered the earliest account given by the claimant of the termination date was when he presented his ET1 form ET 1 on 08 June 2023, where he notes he was dismissed by phone on 26 April 2023. This is wholly inconsistent with his account in his 3-page witness statement which refers to the employment being terminated in person after his computer was removed on 28 April 2023. The claimant was sent an email on 28 April stating that the respondent required 3 days to review the complaints against him. It appears that the decision to dismiss the claimant was dismissed on Friday 28 April 2023 as this is the date that his computer was taken away, and this is the date from which no further hours were allocated to the claimant on the rota. The claimant also did not receive any written responses to his email communication. The claimant could only have been dismissed by reason of disclosures being made before 28 April 2023, if the disclosures were made before 28 April 2023. In this case, the disclosures relied upon were made on and after 02 May 2023 and so could not have been the principal reason for dismissal.

[130]If I am wrong about the dismissal date and dismissal took place on a date after 28 April 2023, I find that the principal reason for dismissal was the allegations made against the claimant. The claimant was asked to await the outcome of a review on 28 April 2023 and thereafter did not receive any further written communication from the respondent thereafter. The claimant gave evidence that his colleague had raised the same protected disclosures with the respondent and that both he and his colleague had been dismissed for making the disclosures. This is not demonstrated by the email evidence. Mr Fiaz, on 10 May, received an email from the respondent inviting him to attend a meeting with HR to discuss his grievance so that the matter could be further investigated. However, on 10 May 2023 the claimant was informed over the phone that he does not work for the respondent. If both Mr Fiaz and the claimant had raised the same matters, it is clear then the respondent was willing to discuss them and investigate them rather than move straight to dismissal. The supports the finding that principal reason for dismissal was not the disclosures but the complaints made by colleagues against the claimant.

[131]For these reasons, the claim for automatic unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed. Detriment

[132]Although the Tribunal has found that the claimant did not make protected disclosures, the Tribunal has considered whether the conduct complained of amounts to a detriment.

[133]The claimant claims that threats were made to him on 10 May 2023 and the claimant relied upon a screenshot of an email message sent by the respondent to his colleague Ihtisham stating “ I have heard your concerns but it is important you return company property as we have reported this issue to the police as it is breach of vulnerable clients date and theft of company property. We are all professional here. Let's deal with it in a professional manner, Can you come have a meeting with HR? Regarding your salary I have contacted accounts and you have been paid till the 20th of April as the pay cycle works 20th to 20th of every month paid on the 1st of every month. Your next pay is due on 01/06/2023 but if you fail to return company items you will sabotage that pay. As HR I advise you to come in for a grievance meeting so I may be able to investigate this further. Kind Regards…”

[134]The claimant is not mentioned in this email at all. The respondent asks for the return of company property and informs Mr Fiaz that the matter has been reported to the police. The claimant relies on this email to say that he was threatened in the same way by way of an email sent to him. However, he has not adduced that email as part of the evidence. Even if he had adduced the email, there is no threat that can amount to a detriment. Furthermore, his account in oral evidence is entirely inconsistent with the evidence in his 3-page statement where states that “During the month of April 2023….threats were made to me and my colleague where thugs had made direct phone calls on my mobile phone making threats”. He did not mention any threats being made to him on the phone in his oral evidence and only relied on the email sent on 10 May 2023 to his colleague. Again, the claimant’s evidence is inconsistent and unreliable as to when the alleged threat was made, what the threat was and how it was made.

[135]I therefore find that the claimant was not threatened on 10 May 2023 and therefore did not suffer a detriment. The claim for protected disclosure detriment is not well founded and is dismissed. Unauthorised deductions from wages

[136]The claimant offer letter date 27 March 2023 shows that his start date was 28 March 2023. The claimant’s employment ended on 28 April 2023. The claimant claims that he had not been paid any wages for the period that he was employed other than 1 payment of £750 and the remainder of the pay was still outstanding.

[137]The claimant gave evidence that he worked on average 40.5 hours per week. He was never sent a contract of employment but understands that it was essentially a zero hours contract. He also states he was never issued with wage slips. I have considered the emails sent by the claimant in an email sent on 08 June 2023 by the claimant to the respondent stating that “we have had no wages or fuel expenses related to your claim the monies would be paid on 1.5.2023”. This demonstrates that arrears of wages and fuel payments had accrued. There were also previous emails and text messages requesting both fuel expenses and pay. For these reasons, The Tribunal finds that the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages is well founded.

[138]The claimant worked on average 40.5 hours per week and was due to be paid £11 per hour. The claimant worked 4 weeks and 4 days. The daily pay rate is £89.10 and weekly pay is £445.50. The total pay for 4 weeks and 4 days amounts to £2138.40. A payment of £750 has already been made, therefore the total amount that remains outstanding is £1388.40. Breach of contract- failure to pay mileage expenses

[139]The claimant claimed that he was entitled to fuel expenses. This is not mentioned in the offer letter however, the claimant requested fuels expenses in a text message to the respondent on 20 April 2023 for a fuel top up and in an email sent on 08 June 2023 by the claimant to the respondent stating that “we have had no wages or fuel expenses related to your claim the monies would be paid on 1.5.2023”. This demonstrates that arrears of wages and fuel payments had accrued and there appears to have been an offer to pay it.

[140]The claimant gave evidence that he was entitled to between £35 and £40 fuel expenses as he had completed mileage sheets that the respondent has not disclosed. On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that fuel expenses were due to be paid, and the claim is well-founded. On average £37.50 is the amount the claimant was entitled to and the claimant worked 4 weeks and 4 days. The total amount due to the claimant is £180. Breach of contract -Notice pay

[141]The claimant gave evidence that he was not given any notice when his employment was terminated. The evidence demonstrates that the respondent stopped allocating any hours to the claimant on 28 April 2023 without giving notice. The claimant is entitled to statutory notice of 1 week as he has worked for the respondent for less than 2 years. The claimant’s claim for notice pay is well founded. The claimant is entitled to £445.50. Holiday pay

[142]The claimant gave evidence that he was entitled to holiday pay for holiday entitlement that accrued over the period that he worked. The offer letter confirms that he is entitled to 28 days holiday pay per annum. The claimant worked 4.8 week and accrued 2.6 days annual leave which he did not take. The claimant’s claim for holiday pay is well founded. The claimant is entitled to £231.66. Failure to provide written statement employment particulars

[143]The claimant claims that he was never issued with a copy of the contract of employment setting out his terms and conditions. The claimant gave evidence that he signed a digital version of the contract but has not been issued with a copy during his employment or since, despite requesting it from the respondent. This has caused issues in putting his claims together as the contract included a policy on travel expenses which would have assisted in proving his claim for outstanding fuel expenses. The claimant stated that he was also entitled to enhanced payments which has not claimed due to not having a copy of the contract. The claimants claim for failure to provide written statement of employment particulars is wellfounded and the claimant is awarded the sum of £1782.

[144]The claimant is awarded a total sum of £4027.56. Approved by: