Ms M Musasa v Care Connect Cheshire Ltd: 2407172/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2407172/2024

Between

Ms M MusasaClaimant

Care Connect Cheshire LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Ainscough

Date 21 October 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The claim for unlawful deduction from wages, contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is unsuccessful and is dismissed.

[2]The claim for unpaid holiday pay contrary to regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 is unsuccessful and is dismissed.

REASONS

The Issues

[1]The claimant worked as a Care Assistant for the respondent a provider of domiciliary care, from 11 September 2023 until 26 July 2024. The claimant has brought complaints of unlawful deduction from wages and failure to pay holiday pay.

[2]The respondent submitted a response denying the claims. There was a case management hearing before Employment Judge Parkin on 16 April 2025 during which he clarified the legal issues. The Issues The issues to be determined were as follows:

[1]Whether the claimant was presented with a car purchase agreement as a condition of commencing employment and whether she signed that agreement before the car was shown to her?

[2]Whether the car purchase agreement was a lawful agreement which the respondent can rely upon i.e. whether the Unfair Contract Terms Act and subsequent legislation applies to this type of agreement where a car purchase agreement is linked to a contract of employment?

The Issues

[3]Whether there was any implied obligation on the respondent to:(i) Ensure it (and the claimant) paid a proper valuation for the car;

(ii) Ensure the roadworthiness and mechanical integrity of the car; and

(iii) Pay the maintenance/repair costs for the car, which remained its property until the claimant made the final payment for it, such that it should have reimbursed her £340 repair costs?

[4]Were unlawful deductions made by the respondent in respect of:(i) An overpayment/undervaluation for the car of £2450 (which was passed on to the claimant)? and

(ii) Sponsorship fees totalling £232.98

[5]Did the respondent fail to reimburse the claimant for proper travel time, to the extent of £5184?

[6]Did the respondent fail to pay wages by underpaying in August 2023 and April 2024, to the extent of £317.59?

[7]Did the respondent fail to pay holiday pay/compensation for accrued paid annual leave for 19 days accrued (in addition to 4 days paid), to the extent of £1448.40. 4. The claimant confirmed that her complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was not made on the basis that she had received less than the national minimum wage. Evidence 5. The parties agreed a 173 page bundle. I heard evidence from the claimant. I also heard evidence from Thomas Green – a Director of the respondent and Elizabeth Brink – the Care Co-ordinator for the respondent. 6. It was not possible to deliberate and give a judgment within the time allocated for the final hearing. Judgment was reserved following the in chambers deliberation day. Relevant Findings of Fact Start of employment 7. Prior to commencement of employment the claimant lived in Africa. On 13 April 2023, whilst still residing in Africa, the claimant signed a “statement of initial terms of employment” which were to be complimented by full terms once the claimant was resident in the UK.

Evidence

[8]That statement set out that the claimant’s employment would commence once she arrived in the UK, had signed all the relevant paperwork and obtained the relevant Visa.

[9]The statement provided for a minimum of 40 hours work per week paid at an hourly rate every four weeks. Mileage was to be paid at a separate rate.

[10]The statement also provided for “costs associated in your employment” to be deducted from pay. These costs were described as: “accommodation, Visa, Car, 1st month living expenses, CoS and any other costs.”

[11]The respondent then provided the claimant with a Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) so that the claimant could apply for a Visa.

[12]On 15 September 2023 the claimant signed a “statement of main terms of employment.” This statement confirmed the hours of work as 40 per week with unpaid breaks.

[13]The statement provided for three hourly rates of £12.07 for day shifts, £12.60 for bedtime shifts and £13.65 for weekend shifts, paid every four weeks. Over the Christmas period in 2023 the claimant received an hourly rate of pay of £24.14 for hours worked on Christmas Day, £18.11 for hours worked on Boxing Day and £18.11 for hours worked on New Years Day.

[14]The pay clause was supplemented by a “deductions from pay agreement” which was also signed by the claimant on 15 September 2023. This agreement provided that the respondent could deduct any “monies collected from you on our behalf and any advances of wages or any loans” from any termination payment. This clause was described as an “express written term of your contract of employment.”

[15]The holiday year ran from 1 July until 30 June each year. The statement confirmed that bank holidays were a normal working day and day off would be granted in lieu of any work undertaken on a bank holiday. The statement also confirmed that accrued but untaken annual leave would be paid on termination of employment.

[16]The annual leave clause was supplemented by the Employee Handbook which stated that annual leave could not be carried forward from one leave year to the next. Car purchase agreement

[17]On 15 September 2023 the claimant also entered into a car purchase agreement with the respondent. The agreement provided that the respondent would purchase a vehicle for the claimant to use in her role and the claimant would repay the respondent for the purchase price of the car over a series of months.

[18]The agreement contained a clause that allowed the respondent to deduct the monthly cost from the claimant’s wages until the purchase price had been repaid. If the claimant’s employment was terminated, the agreement provided for the respondent to deduct the remaining balance from the claimant’s final salary.

[19]On signing the agreement the claimant agreed that she had “carefully inspected the Car and are satisfied with its condition and suitability.”

[20]In November 2023 the claimant informed the respondent that the car needed repairs and asked if they would be covered by a warranty. The respondent told the claimant that they would not be covered and the claimant had to pay for the repairs herself. Hours of work

[21]The claimant’s daily schedule of work between 7am until 9.30pm consisted of visiting customers in their homes to provide domiciliary care in the morning, at lunch time, at teatime and at bedtime.

[22]Between each period of work the claimant was afforded an unpaid break of 1.5 hours. The total period of unpaid breaks in a daily schedule was 4.5 hours.

[23]The morning shift equated to 3.5 hours of work. The lunch time shift equated to 1.5 hours of work. The teatime shift equated to 2.5 hours of work and the bedtime shift equated to 2.5 hours of work. The total period of work in a daily schedule was 10 hours. The claimant was required to travel between each appointment.

[24]On 13 December 2023 Thomas Green emailed the claimant to remind her that she had to spend at least 90% of the allotted call time with the customer before moving onto the customer. Claimant’s resignation

[25]On 28 June 2024 the claimant submitted her resignation and informed the respondent that her last day of work would be 26 July 2024. On this date the claimant had accrued, but not taken, 19 days annual leave.

[26]On 8 July 2024 Thomas Green informed the claimant that she was required to pay the balance of the purchase price for the car, £1922.20, prior to leaving her employment. The claimant asked the respondent if she could leave the car without paying the balance, but the respondent said this was not possible.

[27]On 11 July 2024 the claimant and Thomas Green corresponded by email about the car. The claimant contended that she had asked the respondent to take the car back at the outset due to a number of faults. The respondent denied that this was the case. Claimant’s pay April 2024 and August 2024

[28]On 19 April 2024 the claimant received a payment entitled “Bank Holiday Additions” for 8.5 hours at the rate of £1.58. This equated to a sum of £13.43.

[29]On 9 August 2024 the claimant was paid £5.78 after the respondent made deductions of £522.20. Prior to the deductions, the claimant was paid £150 for accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment. Claimant’s grievance

[30]On 19 August 2024 and 11 September 2024 the claimant submitted a grievance.

[31]On 23 September 2024 the respondent provided a response to the claimant’s grievance. The respondent denied the claimant was forced into purchasing a particular car or that she was unable to inspect the car. The respondent disputed the value of the car or that it wasn’t fit for purpose and reminded the claimant that she agreed to be responsible for the maintenance of the car.

[32]The respondent explained that the claimant had received an additional £1.58 on top of her normal hourly rate for each hour she worked on a bank holiday in April 2024 to compensate the claimant for working on a bank holiday.

[33]The respondent denied that it had underpaid the claimant’s annual leave entitlement on termination or that there had been a deduction of £157.12 from the claimant’s final pay.

[34]The respondent reminded the claimant that she was paid in excess of the national minimum wage and paid for spending the full duration of the appointment with each client, when in fact the records showed the claimant only spent on average 75% of the duration of the appointment with the client and the rest of the time she was paid for travelling between appointments.

[35]The respondent disputed that the claimant spent 2 hours of her daily schedule travelling between appointments because Google maps revealed it was approximately half of this time.

[36]The respondent denied it had recovered the Immigration Skills charge from the claimant in accordance with the law, but maintained it was entitled to recover the cost of the visa, the certificate of sponsorship and other costs associated with the claimant’s employment. Home Office inspection

[37]The Home Office carried out an inspection of the respondent in August 2024 following a suspension of the respondent’s sponsor licence.

[38]The respondent’s licence was reinstated but the Home Office commented that travel time had to be paid as there was a risk that employees could receive less than the national minimum wage. Relevant Legal Principles Unlawful Deduction from Wages

[39]The unlawful deduction from wages claim was brought under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 13(1) confers the right not to suffer unauthorised deductions unless: “(a) The deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a statutory provision or a relevant provision in the worker’s contract; or (b) The worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of the deduction.”

[40]A relevant provision in the worker’s contract is defined by section 13(2) as: “(a) One or more written contractual terms of which the employer has given the worker a copy of on an occasion prior to the employer making the deduction in question; or (b) In one or more terms of the contract, (whether express or implied) and, if express, whether oral or in writing, the existence and effect, or combined effect, of which in relation to the worker the employer has notified the worker in writing on such an occasion.”

[41]A deduction is defined by section 13(3) as follows: “(3) Where the total amount of wages paid on any occasion by an employer to a worker employed by him is less than the total amount of the wages properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion (after deductions), the amount of the deficiency shall be treated for the purposes of this part as a deduction made by the employer from the worker’s wages on that occasion.”

[42]Section 27 defines wages, which includes: “(a) Any fee, bonus, commission, holiday pay or other emolument referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract or otherwise.

[43]Section 24 provides that: “Where any complaint under section 23 is well-founded the Tribunal can make an order that the employer pay to the worker the amount of any deduction in contravention of section 13.” Holiday Pay

[44]Regulation 13(9) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 prohibits the carrying over of annual leave from one leave year into the next leave year. It also prohibits payment in lieu of annual leave except on termination of employment.

[45]Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 provides: “(1) this regulation applies where –(a) a worker’s employment is terminated during the course of this leave year, and

(b) on the date on which the termination takes effect (“the termination date”), the proportion he has taken of the leave to which he is entitled in the leave year under regulation 13 and regulation 13A differs from the proportion of the leave year which has expired. (2) where the proportion of the leave taken by the worker is less than the proportion of the leave year which has expired, his employer shall make him a payment in lieu of leave in accordance with paragraph (3).”

[46]In the case of Stringer and ors v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

2009 ICR 932

, ECJ, the European Court of Justice determined that a worker should be able to carry over annual leave that they have been unable to take due to sickness absence. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

[47]This legislation prohibits the inclusion of any clause within a contract which unlawfully restricts the liability of one party.

[48]However, the Court of Appeal in Keen v Commerzbank AG

2007 ICR 623

determined that the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act could not extend to clauses within an employment contract in which the employer agreed to pay the employee for their personal service because they were neither consumer contracts nor terms of business.

[49]However, if an employer provides a loan or credit to an employee via another contract, the employee may have redress in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in the county court.

[50]Any contractual term allowing a deduction must be enforceable at common law in order that it is deemed a lawful deduction in accordance with section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

[51]In the case of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi; Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis (Consumers Association intervening) 2016 AC 1172, SC, the Supreme Court determined that a penalty clause will only be unenforceable against the party in breach if it is out of all proportion to the interest of the other party in the performance of the contract. The Supreme Court determined this principle applied to parties of “comparable bargaining power”. As a result, it is unlikely that this will apply to employment contracts in which the employer has greater bargaining power than the employee. Costs associated with sponsorship

[52]An employer with a licence for sponsorship of foreign workers can assign a Certificate of Sponsorship to an employee. The cost of such assignment can range from £239 - £525.

[53]A Certificate of Sponsorship allows the employee to apply for a Visa to work in the United Kingdom. The cost of the Visa may also be met by the employer.

[54]Each time an employer assigns a Certificate of Sponsorship to an employee, the employer pays a levy called the “Immigration Skills Charge” which can range from £364 - £1000 per annum depending on the size of the employer.

[55]At the time of the claimant’s employment, the respondent was entitled to recover all such costs from the employee. Submissions Claimant’s submissions

[56]The claimant submitted that she was entitled to be paid for the time spent travelling between each appointment. The claimant contended that the daily schedule clearly showed that travel between the appointments was within her working hours.

[57]The claimant maintained that the car provided by the respondent was not fit for purpose and disputed that she was offered any other alternative other than to purchase the car. The claimant accepted that she had rights under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

[58]The claimant submitted that the respondent had breached Home Office guidance in recovering the sponsorship fees from the claimant and that the Tribunal should take note of the findings of the Home Office inspection.

[59]The claimant maintained that the correct rate of pay for hours worked on a bank holiday was £18.11 because this was the rate paid over the Christmas period. The claimant did however, accept that the bank holiday rate of pay was set at the respondent’s discretion. Respondent’s submissions

[60]The respondent submitted that the claimant was not entitled to carry over outstanding annual leave from one leave year into the next leave year.

[61]The respondent also maintained that any deductions of costs associated with the claimant’s sponsorship were in accordance with the Home Office guidance and this issue had not been raised by the Home Office as an area of concern during the inspection.

[62]The respondent contended that the claimant had signed an agreement that expressly permitted the respondent to deduct these amounts. The respondent also asked the Tribunal to note that the claimant was aware of these deductions in December 2023 but did not start ACAS Early Conciliation until August 2024.

[63]The respondent submitted that the claimant was not employed by the respondent in August 2023 and therefore had no claim for any alleged deduction from her hourly rate. The respondent maintained that the claimant had received the hourly rate properly payable to her for hours worked on a bank holiday and the claimant now accepted that the rate of pay was separated out in the payslip to show the uplift applied for hours worked on a bank holiday.

[64]The respondent also noted that unless the Tribunal determined that there had been a series of deductions, this complaint was out of time.

[65]The respondent contended that payment for the claimant’s travel time was built into the enhanced hourly rate and incorporating travel time into the claimant’s hours did not take the claimant’s rate of pay below the national minimum wage.

[66]Finally, the respondent submitted that the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 did not apply to employment contracts. The respondent denied that the claimant was induced into accepting the car and asserted that the claimant had options to arrange alternative arrangements for the purchase of a vehicle.

[67]The respondent reminded the Tribunal that if the cost of the car was an unlawful deduction, the claimant would profit from owning a car for which she had not paid. Discussion and Conclusions Was there unlawful deduction from wages? a) Rate of pay for hours worked on a bank holiday

Discussion and Conclusions

[68]The claimant was not employed by the respondent in August 2023 and therefore could not have been subject to any deduction in wages.

[69]The claimant signed the statement of terms of employment on 15 September 2023 which recorded the rates of pay as “£12.07, £12.60 and £13.65”. The normal hourly rate of pay for a day shift was £12.07.

[70]The payslip the claimant received for the hours worked in April 2024 recorded that the claimant was paid for 85.25 hours at a rate of £12.07. The claimant was paid a “Bank Holiday Addition” of £1.58 per hour for 8.5 hours worked on a bank holiday.

[71]In response to the claimant’s grievance, the respondent explained that of the 85.25 hours worked on a day shift, 8.5 of those hours were worked on a bank holiday and therefore attracted an uplift on the normally hourly rate which equated to £1.58 for each hour.

[72]The Tribunal has accepted the explanation given by the respondent in response to the grievance. The sum of the equation £12.07 + £1.58 is £13.65. This equates to the hourly rate paid at weekends. The respondent gave evidence that this was the normally hourly rate paid for hours worked on a bank holiday.

[73]The Tribunal notes that the hourly rate paid to the claimant for the hours worked over the Christmas period in 2023 were higher than £13.65. However, the Tribunal has accepted the respondent’s evidence that those rates were discretionary rates and not provided for in the contract of employment.

[74]The Tribunal has therefore determined that the claimant received the correct hourly rate in accordance with rate properly payable to her for the hours worked on bank holidays in April 2024 and that there has been no unlawful deduction from wages. b) Costs associated with employment

[75]The claimant was employed by the respondent from 11 September 2023 until 26 July 2024. At that time, a sponsoring employer was entitled to recover, in accordance with Home Office guidance, the cost of assigning the certificate of sponsorship, any Visa cost, and the Immigration Skills Charge.

[76]In July 2024 the Home Office guidance changed and a sponsoring employer was prohibited from recovering the Immigration Skills Charge from the sponsored employee after 31 December 2024.

[77]The respondent was inspected by the Home Office and any deductions associated with the employment were not raised by the Home Office as an area of concern.

[78]The claimant had signed a statement of initial terms of employment which specifically provided for the deduction of these associated costs.

[79]Section 13(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 allows an employer to make a deduction from wages if the act was contained within a relevant provision of the contract.

[80]The claimant’s signature on the initial terms of employment was her agreement to the deduction of the associated employment costs and therefore the deductions made by the respondent in this regard were not unlawful. c) Car purchase agreement

[81]On 15 September 2023 the claimant signed both the car purchase agreement and the deductions from pay agreement.

[82]Section 13(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 allows an employer to make a deduction from wages if “the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of the deduction.”

[83]In accordance with section 13(1)(b) the claimant’s act signified in writing her agreement that the cost of the purchase of the car would be deducted from her wages on a monthly basis until the purchase price had been paid off.

[84]In addition, the car purchase agreement provided that, if the claimant left her employment before the purchase price had been paid off, the respondent had the right to deduct the outstanding amount from the final payment of wages. The claimant resigned from her employment as she was entitled to do and was not in breach of contract. Therefore, in accordance with the signed agreement she was required to pay the outstanding purchase price of the car. This requirement was not a penalty clause applied because of the claimant’s resignation.

[85]As a result, the deductions made towards the purchase price of the car throughout the claimant’s employment were not unlawful. Equally, the deductions made from the claimant’s payment of wages in July 2024 and August 2024 to clear the balance of the purchase price of the car, were also not unlawful.

[86]The Tribunal heard evidence from both parties about how the car purchase agreement came to fruition and the issues the claimant had with the car during her employment.

[87]The Tribunal has determined that the claimant was told that she would need to purchase a car to complete her role with the respondent. The respondent offered new employees various options: to repay the respondent for the purchase of a car, to take a loan from the respondent to purchase a car or to purchase their own car.

[88]The claimant disputed that she was offered any other option. However, whilst the respondent was unable to produce any paperwork to prove the claimant had more than this option, the Tribunal found Mr Green to be a credible witness and accepted the respondent was able to provide paperwork for other employees in which various options were offered.

[89]In any event, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the fairness of the car purchase agreement. The claimant clearly had issues with the car during her employment and may be able to pursue recovery of the purchase price in the county court in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d) Travel time

[90]The daily schedule revealed that the claimant worked split shifts over four periods throughout the day. During each period the claimant attended between 2 – 4 appointments. The duration of the appointments was between 30 minutes to 1 hour.

[91]The sum of each appointment over the course of the day equated to 10 hours work.

[92]The national minimum wage for the financial year 2023/2024 was £10.42 per hour. The national minimum wage for the financial year 2024/2025 was £11.44 per hour. Throughout her employment with the respondent the claimant was paid for 40 hours work each week at varying rates above the national minimum wage.

[93]In December 2023 the respondent sent the claimant an email to remind her that she had to spend at least 90% of the allotted appointment time with each client. The respondent operated an electronic monitoring system which provided data to the relevant Local Authority as to how much time was spent in each appointment.

[94]The claimant was contracted and paid to work 10 hours each day. As the respondent required the claimant to spend at least 90% of her time with clients, this in theory left the claimant with 1 hour to travel between appointments throughout the day.

[95]Following the Home Office inspection, the Home Office reminded the respondent that travel time between appointments was working time and should be paid.

[96]The claimant contended that she spent 2 hours per day travelling between appointments. If the claimant is right, there is a potential short fall of pay of an average of 1 hour per day.

[97]However, in response to the claimant’s grievance, the respondent used Google maps to plot the claimant’s travel and asserted that the travel time equated to on average 1 hour per day.

[98]The claimant did not produce any evidence of her actual travel time between appointments.

[99]The Tribunal has determined on the balance of probabilities that the claimant’s travel time was incorporated into the 10 hours she worked each day and the claimant was paid for the time she spent travelling between appointments.

[100]The claimant was not subjected to unlawful deduction from wages and the complaint is dismissed. Did the respondent pay the claimant for accrued but untaken annual leave on termination?

[101]The annual leave year ran from 1 July to 30 June each year.

[102]The claimant resigned from her employment on 28 June 2024. On that date the claimant had accrued 19 days annual leave. The annual leave year ended on 30 June 2024 and the claimant lost her accrued annual leave because the contract of employment did not provide for the carry over of accrued but untaken annual leave.

[103]The Stringer case established that any accrued but untaken annual leave should be carried into the next leave year if the employee has been prevented from taking that leave as a result of sickness absence.

[104]The claimant asserted that she had not taken the leave because the respondent had denied her requests for leave. However, the claimant did not produce any evidence to suggest she had requested leave and that it had been denied by the respondent.

[105]The claimant left the respondent’s employment on 26 July 2024 by which date she would have accrued approximately 2 days of annual leave. Mr Green provided evidence that the claimant took annual leave between 24 July – 26 July. Therefore, the claimant received in excess of 1 day of annual leave on termination of her employment and there was no failure by the respondent to pay any accrued but untaken annual leave.

[106]The complaint of failure to pay accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment is unsuccessful and is dismissed. Approved by: