Ms H Floyd v HM Courts and Tribunals Service: 1400028/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1400028/2025
Between
Ms H FloydClaimantHM Courts and Tribunals ServiceRespondent
Before
Employment Judge FergusonIn person for claimantMs J Moore (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 16 January 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]In relation to the Claimant’s application made under section 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on 16 April 2024:a. The Claimant’s complaint that the Respondent failed to comply with section 80G(1) is well-founded, in that: i. The Respondent did not deal with the application in a reasonable manner; ii. The Respondent did not notify the Claimant of the decision on the application within the decision period; iii. The Respondent refused the application for a reason not falling within the list of permissible reasons in section 80G(1)(b).b. The Respondent is ordered to reconsider the application.[2]The Respondent shall pay the Claimant six weeks’ pay amounting to £4,200. Approved by: Employment Judge Ferguson Date: 16 January 2026 ORIGINAL JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 30 January 2026 AMENDED JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 04 March 2026 Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/ Case Number: 1400028/2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms H Floyd Respondent: His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service Heard at: Bristol Employment Tribunal (by video) On: 16 January 2026 Before:
REASONS
[1]By a claim form presented on 2 January 2025, following a period of early conciliation from 21 October 2024 to 2 December 2024, the Claimant brought a complaint that the Respondent failed to comply with its duties in relation to an application for flexible working. She alleged breaches of s.80G(1)(a) and (aa) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”).[2]In its response to the claim, submitted on 13 March 2025, the Respondent confirmed it did not contest any part of the claim. It accepted that the reasons for refusing the flexible working request did not comply with s.80G(1)(b) ERA.[3]The Respondent also accepted today that there was a breach of s.80G(1)(aa) because the outcome was given 15 days after the agreed extension to the decision period.[4]This hearing was listed to determine remedy. It is also formally to determine liability, given that no judgment has yet been issued on liability.[5]I have heard evidence from the Claimant and from Paul Stock on behalf of the Case Number: 1400028/2025 2 Respondent.
FACTS
[6]The Claimant has been employed by the Respondent since March 2003. She is a Senior Management Accountant.[7]Until recently her working pattern was 64 hours a fortnight, to be worked on 9 days of varying length. Since September 2025 this was changed to 4 days a week, still 32 hours a week.[8]The Claimant is a member of the Corporate Reporting Team. Prior to the Covid lockdown in 2020, she sometimes worked from home but mainly from the Respondent’s office in Worle.[9]Since the Covid lockdown in March 2020 the Claimant has mainly worked from home. She has had periods of working from the office two days a week, but since March 2023 she has mainly worked from home. This is an informal arrangement.[10]On 16 April 2024 the Claimant made a statutory flexible working request, seeking a permanent agreement for her to work from home. She said that “changes in lifestyle and raising a family have adapted around my working pattern and location over the last 4 years”. The Claimant referred to health issues relating to herself, her partner and her son, as well as childcare issues.[11]The Respondent’s policy on flexible working says that requests to work wholly from home “are normally only agreed in exceptional circumstances”.[12]The Claimant’s request was considered by her line manager at the time, Ms Bentley. On 1 May 2024 the Claimant was told there would be a delay of two weeks in considering her request. She says this was followed up by an email stating they had agreed a two-week extension. The Claimant said that was not her understanding, but she accepted the extension.[13]A meeting was held to discuss the request, which the Claimant attended. She chose not to be accompanied. The Claimant says that the focus of the meeting was discussing the practicalities of the Claimant attending the office, and what could be done to facilitate that.[14]The request was refused on 17 June 2024 in accordance with the Respondent’s policy, on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances. The Claimant was notified of a right to appeal and that any appeal would be considered by Mr Moore. The Claimant believed that Mr Moore had been involved in the original rejection of her request, so she objected to his appointment as the appeal manager. The Respondent agreed to change the manager to a Ms Razvi. The Claimant was told Ms Razvi would be on leave for two weeks. The Claimant submitted her appeal on 1 July 2024. She says she did not submit it sooner because she knew Ms Razvi was away. She submitted it on the first day Mr Razvi returned.[15]The Respondent says it requested a further extension of two weeks, which the Case Number: 1400028/2025 3 Claimant refused, but she agreed to a one-week extension, to 7 July 2024. The Claimant could not recall. An appeal meeting took place on 15 July. The appeal was rejected on 22 July 2024. The Respondent said it would allow the Claimant to continue to work from home as a temporary adjustment for 12 to 18 months, to allow the Claimant time to settle issues relevant to her personal situation.[16]It is not in dispute that the Respondent has, to date, not provided the Claimant with a compliant response to her request. The Respondent’s position is that as part of these proceedings it made an open offer of four weeks’ pay and said it would consider the Claimant’s request if she resubmitted it, or submitted a new request. The Claimant rejected that offer. She says that she has explained her request still stands and she has made it clear there are no changes to her original application. That evidence was not challenged.[17]It is not in dispute that the Claimant continues to work exclusively from home. The 18-month period from the rejection of the Claimant’s appeal is due to end on 22 January 2026, i.e. six days after this hearing.[18]The Claimant’s evidence, which again was not challenged on this issue, was that the current uncertainty exacerbates stress, and the impact of the stress has resulted in a decline in her physical and mental health. She said she has been prescribed new medication to manage her conditions. She has also been engaging with the Maximus access to work mental health support service.
THE LAW
[19]Sections 80F-I of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provide, so far as relevant: 80F Statutory right to request contract variation(1) A qualifying employee may apply to his employer for a change in his terms and conditions of employment if— (a) the change relates to— (i) the hours he is required to work, (ii) the times when he is required to work, (iii) where, as between his home and a place of business of his employer, he is required to work… … 80G Employer’s duties in relation to application under section 80F (1) An employer to whom an application under section 80F is made— (a) shall deal with the application in a reasonable manner, … (aa) shall notify the employee of the decision on the application within Case Number: 1400028/2025 4 the decision period, and (b) shall only refuse the application because he considers that one or more of the following grounds applies— (i) the burden of additional costs, (ii) detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand, (iii) inability to re-organise work among existing staff, (iv) inability to recruit additional staff, (v) detrimental impact on quality, (vi) detrimental impact on performance, (vii) insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work, (viii) planned structural changes, and (ix) such other grounds as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations. (1A) If an employer allows an employee to appeal a decision to reject an application, the reference in subsection (1)(aa) to the decision on the application is a reference to— (a) the decision on the appeal, or (b) if more than one appeal is allowed, the decision on the final appeal. (1B) For the purposes of subsection (1)(aa) the decision period applicable to an employee's application under section 80F is— (a) the period of two months beginning with the date on which the application is made, or (b) such longer period as may be agreed by the employer and the employee. (1C) An agreement to extend the decision period in a particular case may be made— (a) before it ends, or (b) with retrospective effect, before the end of a period of three months beginning with the day after that on which the decision period that is being extended came to an end… … 80H Complaints to employment tribunals Case Number: 1400028/2025 5 (1) An employee who makes an application under section 80F may present a complaint to an employment tribunal— (a) that his employer has failed in relation to the application to comply with section 80G(1)… … 80I Remedies (1) Where an employment tribunal finds a complaint under section 80H well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect and may— (a) make an order for reconsideration of the application, and (b) make an award of compensation to be paid by the employer to the employee.(2) The amount of compensation shall be such amount, not exceeding the permitted maximum, as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the permitted maximum is such number of weeks’ pay as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations.(4) Where an employment tribunal makes an order under subsection (1)(a), section 80G shall apply as if the application had been made on the date of the order.[20]The maximum award is eight weeks’ pay, capped at £700 per week.[21]The ACAS Code of Practice on requests for flexible working includes the following: “8. Employers must handle every request in a reasonable manner. This should include carefully assessing the effect of the requested change for both the employer and the employee, such as the potential benefits or other impacts of accepting or rejecting it. …[27]If the employer receives an appeal, they should arrange an appeal meeting without unreasonable delay following the steps at paragraphs 14 and 15 of this Code.[28]The appeal should be dealt with impartially. The person holding the appeal meeting should have sufficient authority to make a decision. Wherever possible, it should be handled by a manager who has not previously been involved in considering the request.” CONCLUSIONS22. The Respondent has not defended these proceedings on liability. In Case Number: 1400028/2025 6 accordance with Rule 22, on the available material including the evidence I have heard today, I find that the Claimant’s complaints in the claim form that the Respondent failed to deal with the application in a reasonable manner and failed to notify the Claimant of its decision within the decision period are well-founded. In light of the Respondent’s concession, I also find that it failed to comply with s.80G(1)(b) in that it did not refuse the application for one or more of the specified reasons.23. I do not accept there was a failure to comply with the ACAS Code as regards the appointment of the appeal manager because there is no dispute the eventual appeal manager was an impartial and appropriate person. I do uphold, however, the Claimant’s assertion in her claim form that the Respondent failed to deal with the request reasonably by focusing on ways to enable the Claimant to return to the office. In breach of paragraph 8 of the Code, the Respondent did not “carefully assess the effect of the requested change for both the employer and the employee”.24. As to remedy, I consider it appropriate to make an order for the Respondent to reconsider the application. Ms Moore did not expressly resist such an order, but said it would be moot because the Respondent had said it was happy to reconsider the application if the Claimant resubmitted it. I do not agree that it would be moot. There is clearly an impasse at present. I accept the Claimant’s evidence that she had made it clear she considers the application still to be live, and there has been no relevant change of circumstances. There is no requirement under the ERA to resubmit an application that has not been lawfully determined.25. It is highly unsatisfactory that the Respondent has still not reconsidered the application notwithstanding its concession in March 2025 that its rejection was not lawful. I can understand the need to check whether anything has changed, but the Claimant has made her position clear that she does not wish to submit a new application, and she still relies on the existing one. The temporary adjustment period allowed after the rejection of the appeal has almost come to an end and the Claimant still does not know if she will be allowed to continue working from home when it ends. It is understandable that that would cause considerable stress to her, and I accept her evidence that it has had a significant negative impact on her mental health.26. I must also consider whether to make an award of compensation and, if an award is made, determine the amount that is just and equitable in all the circumstances (up to the maximum of eight weeks’ pay). There is very limited guidance or authority on this issue. The Respondent has provided four first instance Employment Tribunal decisions in which awards have been made under s.80I, ranging from one to eight weeks’ pay. (Summers v BIMS Ltd 1601577/2018); MacFarlane v HMRC 4101202/2022; Clay v Norton Armouries Film Ltd 1303205/2023; Wilson v FCA 2302739/2023).27. The Claimant argued for the maximum award. The Respondent argued that if any award is made it should be limited to one weeks’ pay. 28. The delay in dealing with the application originally is a minor issue in the Case Number: 1400028/2025 7 context of this case. I do not consider the delay was very substantial. The Claimant did not object to extensions to 7 July and the outcome came 15 days later.
CONCLUSIONS
[29]The failure to comply with s.80G(1)(b), coupled with the failure to deal with the application in a reasonable manner, was significant. The Respondent simply did not give proper consideration to the application because it applied its policy, which is accepted not to be compliant with the statutory requirements, and found there were no exceptional circumstances.[30]The most significant issue, however, is the fact that the Respondent accepted in March 2025 it had not provided a lawful response, and yet it has still not done so. That is a wholly unacceptable delay in the circumstances. I do take into account the fact that the Claimant has been allowed to continue working from home in the meantime, which means a maximum award would not be appropriate, but this is a case where the Respondent’s failure has had a real impact on the Claimant, including on her health.[31]I have taken into account the first instance decisions that have been provided to me, noting that they are not binding on me and each case turns on its own facts. None of those cases involved an employer conceding it had not provided a lawful decision, and then failing to provide one for a further period of some ten months.[32]In all the circumstances I consider an award of six weeks’ pay is appropriate. This is not the most serious case of failure that could be envisaged, in that there was a process, and importantly the Claimant has been allowed to continue with the arrangement she seeks to date. Having said that, it is now almost two years since the Claimant’s request and she has still not had a valid response. The uncertainty has been seriously detrimental to her.[33]I award six weeks’ pay. It is agreed that a week’s pay for these purposes is the statutory maximum of £700. The total amount awarded is therefore £4,200. Approved by: