Mr A Caisley v Kent Coach Travel Ltd T/a Travelmasters: 2304021/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2304021/2023

Between

Mr A CaisleyClaimant

Kent Coach Travel Limited t/a TravelmastersRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Robinson

In person for claimant

Not represented for respondent

Date 6 March 2026

JUDGMENT

[1]The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim is dismissed because the claimant did not have the required two years’ service.

[2]The claimant’s statutory sick pay claim is dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.

[3]The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday pay. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £726.24.

[4]The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay the claimant the full amount of wages due for the period 2 February to 28 May 2023. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £408.

[5]The claimant’s claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeds. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £3,055.07 by way of remedy for injury to feelings.

REASONS

[6]I did not give the claimant my judgment and reasons at the hearing. I decided it was preferable to reserve my judgment and issue it in writing afterwards, so that the respondent (who did not attend the hearing) could see not only the judgment, but the reasons why I have made it. 1 of 10

Background

[7]The claimant was employed by the respondent as a bus driver from 2 February 2023 until 28 May 2023. The claimant made complaints against the respondent to the Tribunal on 2 August 2023 of:a. unfair dismissal

b. statutory sick pay

c. holiday pay

d. unauthorised deduction from wages

e. failure to make reasonable adjustments

[8]The respondent had not engaged at all with the claimant or the Tribunal about this case. There was no response (ET3) form, despite the case being reissued to the registered address of the respondent as shown on Companies House. On 25 June 2025, the Tribunal had also warned the respondent about the possibility of a judgment under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure being issued, given the respondent had not provided a response to the claim.

[9]A judge had considered the case file and decided that, rather than issuing a Rule 22 judgment, a hearing should be listed to decide the claim because it involved a discrimination claim which needed to be assessed. The parties were told of that decision on 25 September 2025 and a final hearing was listed for today. Claims dismissed Housing-related claims

[10]The claimant made several additional claims that are not within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal and therefore I could make no judgment in relation to them. These related to housing matters (rent overpayment, electricity bills and key fob charges) that arose from a separate tenancy agreement between the claimant and the Director of the respondent. The claimant understood that he could only pursue these types of claims elsewhere; not in the Employment Tribunal. Unfair dismissal

[11]The claimant accepted that he did not have the required two years’ of employment with the respondent that is required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. That claim is therefore dismissed. Statutory Sick Pay

[12]The claimant claimed Statutory Sick Pay (SSP). Such claims are for an officer of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to decide (see the Social Security 2 of 10 Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc) Act 1999 s 8(1)(f), (g) and the Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay (Decisions) Regulations 1999 SI 1999/776).

[13]Only HMRC can determine the dispute, subject to appeal. An Employment Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider disputes about the amount of any entitlement to SSP under the unauthorised deductions of wages provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see Taylor Gordon & Co Ltd (t/a Plan Personnel) v Timmons

[2004] IRLR 180

, EAT. The SSP part of that case was approved in Sarti (Sauchiehall St) Ltd v Polito

UKEATS/0049/07

(17 June 2008, unreported)).

[14]The claimant’s claim for SSP is therefore dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. Decision to proceed with the case today

[15]I considered it in the interests of justice and the overriding objective to proceed to hear the claimant’s remaining claims today. I took account of how long ago the claimant had lodged the claim (2 August 2023) and the importance of avoiding delay to cases. The claimant agreed that he was happy to take part in the hearing today and that he wanted a resolution to his case given it seemed clear the respondent was not going to engage with it.

[16]The claimant explained that, due to his disabilities and a recent house move, he was unable to provide documentary evidence in support of his claim. He had also not provided a witness statement. I took account of the fact that the Tribunal had not asked the claimant to provide any of these documents, and that the claimant had disabilities that affected his ability to represent himself in these proceedings.

[17]I decided to determine the case based on the claimant’s oral evidence, which he gave under oath. I told the claimant that I wanted to hear his evidence about each of his claims, the basis for his calculations of the amounts he was seeking, how his alleged disabilities affected him and what was the alleged discriminatory treatment that he had experienced from the respondent.

[18]Before setting out the claimant’s evidence, I first set out the relevant law in relation to the claimant’s remaining claims:a. Holiday pay

b. Unauthorised deductions from wages

c. Failure to make reasonable adjustments (including disability status) 3 of 10 Applicable law Holiday pay

Applicable law

[19]This may be either a claim for breach of contract or breach of regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The questions are:a. How much leave had he accumulated during his employment?

b. How much leave had he taken?

c. How many days remain unpaid?

d. What was his daily rate of pay?

e. How much pay is outstanding? Unauthorised deduction from wages

[20]Section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states that an employer shall not make a deduction from a worker’s wages unless the deduction is required or authorised by a statutory provision or by the worker’s contract, or the worker has previously confirmed in writing that he consents to the deduction. The question in this case was how much pay the respondent had withheld and whether it had a basis for doing so. Disability status

[21]The first question in relation to the failure to make reasonable adjustments claims is to decide whether the claimant had a disability at the relevant time. He relies on his ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and EDNOS.

[22]The test in section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 is: a. “A person (P) has a disability if— i. P has a physical or mental impairment, and ii. the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”

[23]The main questions here are whether it:a. had a substantial adverse effect on normal day to day activities; and

b. was likely to last 12 months.

[24]Section 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010 defines “substantial” as “more than minor or trivial”. 4 of 10 Failure to make reasonable adjustments

[25]If the claimant has a disability, the tests in relation to reasonable adjustment claims are set out in section 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. These sections are not repeated here but I have applied them in my judgment.

[26]The claimant says that the respondent had a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) of:a. requiring bus drivers to make written notes while they were in the bus without providing additional (paid) time to rewrite such notes afterwards, and

b. requiring bus drivers to use a paper map (or a satnav without being trained on it) to navigate on their rail-replacement routes.

[27]The PCP in such cases can be quite general, as the Court of Appeal made clear in Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

2017 ICR 160

, CA. In that case Elias LJ held that the appropriate formulation was that the: a. “employee had to maintain a certain level of attendance at work in order not to be subject to the risk of disciplinary sanctions. That was the provision, breach of which might end in warnings and ultimately dismissal. It was clear that a disabled employee whose disability increased the likelihood of absence from work on ill health grounds, was disadvantaged in more than a minor or trivial way.”

[28]The next question is whether the PCP put those with the claimant’s disabilities at a particular disadvantage compared with others by requiring him to spend extra (unpaid) time writing up his notes, and causing him to struggle to navigate on his bus routes.

[29]Can the respondent show that its PCPs were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?

[30]Did the respondent take such steps as were reasonable to avoid that disadvantage? The burden of proof does not lie on the claimant, but he says that they could have provided support with his writing, allowed him time writeup his notes (within his working hours) and also provided a more effective means of navigating on his bus routes.

[31]Did the respondent not know, or could the respondent not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant had a disability or was likely to be placed at this disadvantage? Findings of fact and conclusions

[32]I found the claimant to be open and honest in his evidence. I have made the following findings of fact based on that evidence. I have reached my conclusions by applying the findings of fact to the relevant law above. 5 of 10 Holiday pay

[33]I accept the claimant’s evidence that:a. he worked for the respondent from 2 February to 28 May 2023

b. the proportion of the 5.6 weeks statutory holiday entitlement that he would have accrued for that 116 day period was 1.78 weeks (116/365 = 31.78%. 0.3178 x 5.6 weeks = 1.78))

c. his weekly pay was £408

d. on leaving his employment, the respondent did not pay the claimant for any accrued but untaken holiday pay

[34]I therefore conclude that the claimant is entitled to £726.24. I have calculated this by multiplying 1.78 (the number of weeks of accrued but untaken holiday) by £408 (the claimant’s weekly wage). The respondent is ordered to pay £726.24 to the claimant. Unauthorised deduction from wages

[35]I accept the claimant’s evidence that he worked an additional week for the respondent, for which he was not paid at the termination of his employment. Given the respondent had not provided any statutory or contractual basis for making the deduction, I therefore award the claimant one week’s pay (£408) in respect of the unauthorised deduction made by the respondent. Disability status

[36]The claimant relied upon the disabilities of:a. ADHD

b. Dyslexia

c. Dyspraxia

d. EDNOS (eating disorder not otherwise specified)

[37]The claimant has had EDNOS diagnosed since 2018. Although the claimant referred to this condition throughout his evidence, I do not find that it is ultimately relevant to his claim. I have therefore based my judgment on the claimant’s other conditions.

[38]The claimant has had his other conditions (ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia) for life but has had a formal diagnosis since 2021. All three conditions had, at the time of the claimant’s employment, existed for more than 12 months and been assessed by health professionals.

[39]The claimant also had a disabled student allowance, in relation to these conditions, at the time of his employment with the respondent. 6 of 10

[40]The respondent knew of the claimant’s ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia because he referred to them in his interview for the job. Also, the claimant referred to his disabilities when explaining to the respondent why the notes he had written on the bus were illegible (which had resulted in the respondent asking him to rewrite them in the yard after his shift).

[41]The claimant said that his dyslexia causes organisational issues and difficulty keeping track of time. He explained that he struggles to work out how long it takes to get somewhere and how long it takes to get ready. He regularly finds it difficult to be productive and is often losing important things such as his keys and wallet. The combination of his conditions means that he often forgets to eat. The claimant also struggles significantly with his writing. His writing speed is much slower than those without his conditions and he regularly makes errors which affects his ability to undertake day to day activities like filling out forms. In accordance with the Equality Act 2010 definition of “substantial”, I find these adverse effects on the claimant’s ability to carry out day to day activities to be more than minor or trivial.

[42]The claimant does not take medication for any of the conditions. However, he has had to return to living at home with his mum for support. This has helped with the claimant’s organisational issues and eating well. However, at the time of his employment, the claimant lived in a caravan leased to him by the Director of the respondent.

[43]I conclude that the claimant has had his conditions for more than 12 months, and that they have a substantial impact on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities, such as organising his affairs and keeping to time. In my view, the claimant therefore meets the definition of disability for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. Failure to make reasonable adjustments

[44]The claimant then gave evidence about the alleged discriminatory treatment which he described as failures to make reasonable adjustments.

[45]The Director of the respondent would often make the claimant rewrite his paperwork because they deemed his handwriting unacceptable. The claimant stated that this was due to his dyslexia and dyspraxia but he was not given any support to help with this issue. In addition, writing while on the bus was very hard for the claimant as there was nothing to lean on and no reasonable adjustment to assist his difficulties in writing. The claimant asked for adjustments but was told by the respondent that nothing could be done. Instead, the respondent made the claimant redo all his paperwork in the yard after his shift but this was additional unpaid time that the claimant spent doing this.

[46]The Director also provided no training for the work the claimant did on his railreplacement bus routes. The claimant was just given a paper map and told to get on with it. Occasionally there was a satnav but the claimant was not shown how to use it and he experienced difficulties using it, due to his disabilities. When the claimant asked for adjustments, the respondent just 7 of 10 said words to the effect of “use the satnav, it is what it is, get on with it”. The claimant relied on the kindness and goodwill of other drivers to help him at certain moments, but he received no support or reasonable adjustments from the respondent to take account of the impact of the claimant’s disabilities on this navigation task.

[47]The claimant explained in his evidence that each of these failures to make reasonable adjustments caused relapses in his conditions and exacerbated his organisational issues. His personal life began to spiral out of control and this continued after the end of his employment. The claimant had to move back in with his mum so that he had secure accommodation with caring support. It took the claimant from May-August 2023 while living with his mum to get his EDNOS back under control while undergoing CBT therapy as an outpatient at hospital. The claimant then returned to university because of the negative experience of his employment and was deterred from applying for several roles because of the negative experience of working for the respondent.

[48]Given I accept the claimant’s evidence, it is clear to me that there was a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The respondent had practices (PCPs) of requiring the claimant to:a. Write-up his notes after his shift (unpaid)

b. Use paper maps (or a satnav without training or support)

[49]These PCPs put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared with others. The respondent took no reasonable steps to support the claimant in avoiding that disadvantage. The claimant suggested that the respondent could have, for example:a. provided an aid to support his ability to write while on the bus,

b. paid him to re-write his notes in the yard (rather than on the bus), and/or

c. provided training on the satnav.

[50]Given the absence of any engagement by the respondent in this case, I have not been made aware of any reasoning or justification for why the PCPs may have been a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

[51]I conclude that the respondent knew (or could reasonably have been expected to know) of the claimant’s disabilities and that its PCPs would place him at this disadvantage. The claimant’s claim in relation to the respondent’s failure to make reasonable adjustments therefore succeeds. Compensation for failure to make reasonable adjustments

[52]The purpose of such an award is compensation rather than to punish the employer. 8 of 10

[53]The general guidelines that apply to compensation in discrimination claims were set out by the Court of Appeal in Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

2003 ICR 318

, CA. These guidelines provide for three broad bands:a. a top band applicable to the most serious cases, such as where there has been a lengthy campaign of discriminatory harassment;

b. a middle band applicable to serious cases that do not merit an award in the higher band; and

c. a lower band applicable to less serious cases, such as where the act of discrimination is an isolated incident or one-off occurrence.

[54]The President of the Employment Tribunals has issued periodic guidance on the appropriate award in each Vento band, and the one that applies in this case (claims submitted after 6 April 2023) provides that:a. awards in the lower band should fall between £1,100 to £11,200;

b. awards in the middle band should fall between £11,200 to £33,700; and

c. awards in the upper band should fall between £33,700 to £56,200, with the most exceptional cases capable of exceeding that upper limit.

[55]The claimant seeks a compensatory award. He has suffered no financial loss, but he has suffered injury to feelings which was caused by the actions of the respondent.

[56]As regards injury to feelings, I have considered the “Vento bands” referred to above. As the complaint relates to only two issues in a relatively short period of employment, the award to the claimant appropriately sits in the lower band. The incident did affect the claimant and his personal life in the four months that followed his employment, before he started university. It has also impacted his longer-term ability to apply for and find employment. I consider it appropriate to award the claimant the injury to feelings amount he seeks of £2,500, being at the lower end of the lower band.

[57]I have considered whether it is appropriate to award interest on the injury to feelings damages, and I find that it is, given the delays caused to this case by the respondent’s failure to engage in the proceedings. Calculating that simple interest, at the statutory rate of 8%, from the date of the discriminatory acts to the date of this calculation (as per Regulation 6(1)(a) of the applicable Regulations), the period for which interest has accrued is 1,013 days (28 May 2023 to 6 March 2026), so that interest amount is (1,013/365) x 0.08 x £2,500 = £555.07.

[58]The total award to the claimant for the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim is therefore £3,055.07. 9 of 10