Mr M Peters v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency: 3306403/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3306403/2024
Between
Mr M PetersClaimantDriver and Vehicle Standards AgencyRespondent
Before
Employment Judge J ConnollyMs J Moore (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 9 October 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant was not a disabled person by reason of complex post traumatic stress disorder at the relevant time and within the meaning of Section 6 of the Equality Act, 2010 (‘EQA’).[2]All complaints of disability discrimination (including direct, indirect, discrimination because of something arising in consequence of a disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments) are dismissed.[3]For the avoidance of doubt the complaint of unfair dismissal is unaffected by this Judgment and can proceed to a final hearing.
REASONS
[1]The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the Claimant was a disabled person at the relevant time. THE ISSUES 1 of 13
THE ISSUES
[2]At the outset, I clarified the following matters:2.1 The claimant asserted he was disabled by reason of a mental health impairment, namely, complex post traumatic stress disorder (‘C-PTSD’).2.2 The parties agreed that the relevant period in which to determine whether he was disabled within the meaning of the EQA was 4 October 2023 – 4 July 2024. The former being the date on which the claimant said he manifested behaviour as a consequence of his disability (& for which he was, in part, dismissed); the latter being the date his appeal against dismissal was rejected.2.3 The respondent accepted in principle that the claimant had C-PTSD during this period.2.4 There was, therefore, no dispute that the claimant had experienced a mental health impairment in the relevant period. In the circumstances, the claimant no longer relied on post traumatic stress syndrome as a disability.[3]Having established the above, I further clarified and agreed with the parties that the issues for me to determine were:3.1 did C-PTSD, or the symptoms thereof, have a substantial adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to carry out day to day activities during the period 4 October 2023 – 4 July 2024 and, if so, from when / during what period?3.2 would C-PTSD have had a substantial adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to carry out day to day activities during the period without medical treatment or other corrective measures and, if so, when / during what period?3.3 were those effects long term, in the sense they could well continue for 12 months and, if so, from when were they long term?3.4 were those effects long term in the sense they could well recur?[4]The respondent explained that, although it was disputed that any symptoms of CPTSD had the requisite substantial adverse impact, its primary case was that any impact could not be said to be long term during the relevant period. THE EVIDENCE AND THE HEARING[5]I was provided with:5.1 an agreed file of documents of 95 pages5.2 the respondent’s request for information dated 4 April 20255.3 a file of ‘Legal Materials’ submitted on behalf of the respondent and5.4 a file titled ‘Claimant’s Case Law’ submitted on behalf of the claimant.[6]I heard evidence from the claimant and submissions from both parties.[7]There were difficulties with the claimant’s case law which, in my view, it is appropriate to set out at this stage. Firstly, the wrong case law file was sent which related to the substantive merits of the claims, not the preliminary hearing. There 2 of 13 was some delay to the hearing as a result. More significantly, when the correct case law file was submitted, it contained the case citation and very short summaries of some 11 cases rather than the cases themselves. Although not clear from the face of the document, when asked, Mr Ryan explained that the summaries were generated using an AI tool into which specific prompts or queries had been inputted. The prompts or queries were not shown in the document albeit the case summaries were grouped under various headings such as ‘delayed onset of PTSD’.[8]It appeared no one had checked the accuracy of the summaries by looking at the cases themselves because(a) one of the reports of a first instance case (Nally v Freshfield Care ET/2401774/14) could not be produced when requested and(b) the summary of another first instance decision (Panton v Bright HR Ltd (ET2403578/2020) was demonstrably inaccurate in a number of very significant respects when the report was obtained and the summary was compared to the full ET Judgment and Reasons.[9]I raise this because:9.1 An appreciable amount of hearing time was taken up with trying to obtain copies of various reports in order that respondent’s Counsel (and I) could check the accuracy of the AI generated summaries.9.2 There was a significant risk I could have been misled had this not been done.9.3 Because of the demonstrated inaccuracies, I was unable to rely on the summaries.9.4 The delay involved also caused or contributed to my Judgment being reserved.[10]I acknowledge that Mr Ryan is not a legally qualified representative and that the legal research has, apparently, been carried out by volunteers on his behalf. He is genuinely seeking to assist a claimant who would otherwise be unrepresented. Nonetheless, it is important that some basic checks are done to ensure that the material put before the Tribunal is accurate in order to avoid the above. I refer to R (on the application of Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 which clearly identifies the risk of not undertaking such checks and the importance of doing so.
RELEVANT LAW
[11]I must apply the definition of disability from section 6 of the Equality Act (EQA), namely, “A physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a [person’s] ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.[12]It is for the claimant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he satisfies the definition of disability. 3 of 13[13]I must assess whether the adverse effect of the claimant’s C-PTSD was both substantial and long term at the date of the alleged discrimination. I do so by reference to the facts and circumstances existing at that date and evidence which illuminates the nature of the claimant’s impairment at that point in time (McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] IRLR 227 [24]; All Answers Limited v W EWCA Civ 606, [2021] IRLR 612 [26]).[14]I have had regard, where relevant, to the Secretary of State’s Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability 2011 (the Guidance) and to the EHRC Code of Practice 2011, particularly appendix 1 (the Code). Adverse effect on normal day to day activities[15]Day to day activities are described in the Code Appendix 1, paragraph 14 as “activities which are carried out by most men or women on a fairly regular and frequent basis”.[16]The Guidance at D3 states: “Examples include shopping, reading and writing, having a conversation or using the telephone, watching television, getting washed and dressed, preparing and eating food, carrying out household tasks, walking and travelling by various forms of transport, and taking part in social activities... can include general work related activities... such as interacting with colleagues, following instructions, using a computer, driving, carrying out interviews, preparing written documents and keeping to a timetable or shift pattern.”[17]The focus is on what the Claimant cannot do, rather than on what he can do in relation to day-to-day activities (Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway UK EAT/0316/12; [2013] ICR 591). Substantial effect[18]The effect of an impairment is substantial if it is more than trivial (Section 212(2) EqA 2010).[19]The Tribunal must consider the actual ability of a Claimant to carry out the activities compared with his ability if he did not have the impairment (Elliot v Dorsett County Council [2021] IRLR 880).[20]The Guidance suggests a number of factors which may be considered in assessing the effect of an impairment at paragraphs B1 – B17 including how far a person can reasonably be expected to modify their behaviour by use of coping or avoidance strategies (B7). It states: 4 of 13 “In some instances, a coping or avoidance strategy might alter the effects of the impairment to the extent that they are no longer substantial and the person would no longer meet the definition of disability. In other instances even with the coping or avoidance strategy, there is still an adverse effect on the carrying out of normal day-to-day activities.”[21]I refer also to B9 in this regard: “Account should also be taken of where a person avoids doing things which, for example cause pain fatigue or substantial social embarrassment, or avoids doing things because of a loss of energy and motivation. It would not be reasonable to conclude that a person who performed an avoidance strategy was not a disabled person in determining a question as to whether a person meets the definition of disability it is important to consider the things that a person cannot do or can only do with difficulty.”[22]There is an example given: “In order to manage a mental health condition, a woman who experiences panic attacks find that she can manage daily tasks, such as going to work, if she can avoid the stress of travelling in the rush hour. In determining whether she meets the definition of disability, consideration should be given to the extent to which it is reasonable to expect her to place such restrictions on her working and personal life.”[23]In the appendix to the Guidance, there is a non-exhaustive list of factors which, if they are experienced by a person, it would be reasonable to regard as having a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.[24]Included within that list is the following: "- persistent general low motivation or loss of interest in everyday activities… - persistently wanting to avoid people or significant difficulty taking part in normal social interaction or forming social relationships, for example because of a mental health condition or disorder…” Effects of medical treatment[25]Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 1 to the EqA provides that “…an impairment is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities if measures are being taken to treat or correct it and, but for that, it would be likely to have that effect.”[26]In this regard, “likely” means ‘could well happen’ — Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) 2009 ICR 1056, HL. This means that in assessing whether there is a substantial adverse effect on the person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, any ongoing medical 5 of 13 treatment which reduces or extinguishes the effects of the impairment should be ignored. Long term[27]The effect of an impairment is long term if it has lasted or is likely to last for at least 12 months (Schedule 1, paragraph 2(1) EqA 2010) or, alternatively, if it is likely to recur (para 2(2)).[28]Again, likely, in both these paragraphs means could well happen i.e. could well last 12 months or recurrence of the effects could well happen .[29]Again, as set out above, it is important to note that the issue of how long the effects of an impairment are likely to last and whether they are likely to recur should be determined at the date of the discriminatory act/s and not the date of the tribunal hearing.[30]The Guidance states that the effects are to be treated as long term if they are likely to recur beyond 12 months after the first occurrence (see para C6). RELEVANT FINDINGS OF FACT[31]The claimant commenced work with the respondent as a driving examiner on 9 Jan 2017 after some 33 years service as a police officer from which he retired in 2015.[32]On 25 September 2023 the claimant was involved in an incident in which a member of the public was physically removed from the respondent’s premises. This incident was covertly recorded and uploaded and shared on various social media sites and was covered by national news on 24 October 2023.[33]On 4 October 2023 the claimant was informed that the incident would be subject to a health and safety investigation. The respondent contends that the claimant reacted angrily to this and was verbally abusive. On 5 October the claimant was informed his conduct on both 25 September 2023 and on 4 October 2023 would be subject to a disciplinary investigation. On 10 October 2023 the claimant was absent from work with ‘psychological stress’. He did not return and was dismissed on 25 March 2024. His appeal against dismissal was rejected on 4 July 2024. Condition or impairment[34]As set out above it is agreed that the claimant had C-PTSD, which is the impairment upon which he relies, and it is not disputed that it was present from 4 October 2023. What is not clear is when the claimant was first diagnosed with that condition nor is it agreed he ever experienced any adverse effect as a consequence of it. 6 of 13[35]In his Impact Statement (‘IS’) the claimant said the following:35.1 “This IS refers to my PTSD which is not something I had suffered with prior to the initial incident on 25th September 2023” and35.2 “…the way this triggered my PTSD, which is something which had never surfaced in me before, is the most frightening aspect of all.”[36]In oral evidence C said his PTSD probably first started in the mid-eighties but had lain dormant until triggered by workplace events which form the subject of this claim. He stated, contrary to his IS, that he had suffered some symptoms previously although he did not state what they were. He said that in his IS he meant he had not sought help prior to 25 September. He also however pointed to a record in counselling documents that he had some support while in the police due to trauma in 1999. He said he considered he had the condition for some 26 years.[37]I note in counselling records on 19 December 2023 the claimant’s experience is described as follows: “An Incident happened where his manager asked him to remove someone from the office... as the client tried to remove this person he was fighting back and has accused the client of assault. He also video filmed the incident and this has been on TV. The client has not had any support from his employers and is now looking at being dismissed. Since this has happened the client has been getting trauma recall from past cases when he was a police officer these involved one of his colleagues being stabbed to death... another trauma recall is when he arrived at a house where he was stabbed by a perpetrator... another incident was when he attended and was first on scene where a man had used his samurai sword... the client is having regular nightmares and feels that these three incidences are happening in the here and now.”[38]On 26 April 2024 it is recorded as follows: “… the client reported he was able to focus positively on his future including starting new employment. The client did not feel he had any unresolved symptoms as endorsed in the psycho-metric measures and was happy to conclude treatment.”[39]On the basis of the impact statement and description set out above, and in the absence of any medical records provided by the claimant relating to the periods prior to 2023, I find the effects of the claimant’s condition manifested or had an effect only from October 2023 onwards. There was no detail on what trauma was and what help was received in 1999 or what symptoms he suffered at that time. I therefore do not find that the symptoms occurring in 2023 were either the continuation or recurrence of any earlier symptoms. Symptoms and effects 25 September – 19 October 2023[40]In his IS and in his evidence more generally the claimant did not detail the nature or extent of his PTSD symptoms during any particular period of time. Instead, he described his symptoms at May 2025 apparently broadly on the basis they been at 7 of 13 the described level since 25 September 2023 or since 23 October 2025. He did not provide any contemporaneous GP records. In making my findings of fact I have therefore relied heavily on the contemporaneous evidence from OH and Counsellor.[41]Because the relevant time period for the claim started on 4 October 2023, I sought to explore the claimant’s symptoms around this date in a little more detail in oral evidence. He told me that since 25 September 2023 his life had imploded and he did not remember day to day what happened from that moment. He said he could not be clearer than that and that from 25 September 2023 his C-PTSD built and built until he was able to access counselling.[42]While it is clear that the claimant was upset in this period from 25 September to 4 October 2023 I do not find any specific symptoms at this time because his evidence is not sufficiently clear as to what they were. I note that he continued to attend work during this period and to work in a public facing role.[43]I find it likely that, after being informed of two investigations on 4th and 5th October 2023 his symptoms further developed. I make this finding on the basis of the reference in the OH report dated 19 October 2023 to which says “[the claimant] would like to highlight that …the perceived management of one specific incident is causing his stress” and his oral evidence that his symptoms built and built around this time.[44]I find specifically that the claimant developed panic attacks, hot flushes, was more emotional than usual and felt exhausted. I make this finding on the basis of the contemporaneous OH report dated 19 October 2023 (page 63). I find this accurately describes the claimant’s symptoms from 5 October in circumstances where there is no evidence of any events or alteration of his symptoms between 5 October and 19 October 2023.[45]I note that the OH advisor at that time recorded that the claimant was undertaking the normal activities of daily living but was unable to return to work because of perceived work related stressors.[46]At that stage the OH advisor anticipated the effects of the claimant’s symptoms would be “a temporary condition; the resolution of which I believe will only be achieved through a management route and not a medical route”. Symptoms and effects 23 October 2023 – early January 2024[47]I accept that the claimant’s symptoms further deteriorated after the news broadcast on 23 October 2023. I find this based on the emphasis he gives to this event in his impact statement where says “this affected my immediate family whereby my 88- year-old mother phoned me in a distressed state having seen the first broadcast. My wife was fearful of some kind of personal reprisal attack on me or our home 8 of 13 due to the lies being spouted on the TV about the incident. More importantly the way this triggered my PTSD, which is something that had never surfaced in me before, is the most frightening aspect of all. I became overwhelmed by self-doubt and loathing of myself brought on by such an innocuous incident.”[48]I accept the claimant’s symptoms from the end of October 2023 – early January 2024 are accurately recorded in the assessment on 21 December 2023 by a case manager working for a charity from whom the claimant was seeking assistance namely:48.1 Reliving trauma from cases when he was a police officer48.2 Regular nightmares48.3 Regularly feeing on edge, very angry and very tearful48.4 Feeling isolated48.5 Struggling to get out of the house48.6 His family being worried about him48.7 Suicidal thoughts not to point of carrying it out but just not wanting to be here[49]I further accept the claimant’s elaboration in his IS that feeling on edge, isolated, struggling to get out was a feeling of anxiety that something negative or bad would happen if he went out and engaged with the outside world.[50]By reference to the extracts from the Guidance cited above, I have highlighted in bold the difficulties with normal day-to-day activities the claimant was having at this time: “shopping, reading and writing, having a conversation or using the telephone, watching television, getting washed and dressed, preparing and eating food, carrying out household tasks, walking and travelling by various forms of transport, and taking part in social activities... can include general work related activities... such as interacting with colleagues, following instructions, using a computer, driving, carrying out interviews, preparing written documents and keeping to a timetable or shift pattern … - persistent general low motivation or loss of interest in everyday activities… - persistently wanting to avoid people or significant difficulty taking part in normal social interaction or forming social relationships, for example because of a mental health condition or disorder… - persistent distractibility or difficulty concentrating".[51]I am persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant’s ability to relate to others and ability to socialise were detrimentally affected in a way that was more than minor or trivial and could properly be said to be substantial.[52]At some point the claimant was prescribed Sertraline, commenced a 12-week course of EMDR and TB-CBT and attended a 5-day residential course of low intensity group therapy. 9 of 13 Symptoms January 2024 – end Apr 2024[53]The claimant’s symptoms significantly improved during this period so that by 5 March 2024 the then current position was accurately recorded in the occupational health report: “previous symptoms of nightmares, panic attacks, fear of venturing outside have improved greatly since our previous meeting. Mr Peters was prescribed antidepressant medication to help with symptom management and the medication has now been discontinued. He is undertaking normal activities of daily living.”[54]On 26 April 2024, after dismissal on 25 March 2024, the therapies he was receiving from a charity ended. A “closing summary” recorded (I accept accurately): “Due to his progress from treatment, the client was able to manage his reaction appropriately when he was dismissed by his employer ... the client reported he was able to focus positively on his future including starting new employment. The client did not feel he had any unresolved symptoms as endorsed in the psycho-metric measures and was happy to conclude treatment.”[55]I find that the claimant was at this time able to focus positively on his future and starting new employment as a delivery driver on 14 April 2024 and subsequently a self-employed fleet driving assessor, a job which continues to date[56]Thus I find that in March 2024 it was anticipated that his symptoms would be no more than minor or trivial by end of April and by the end of April 2024 his symptoms had resolved as a result of the treatment he had received. By that time there were no symptoms that were having an effect on his normal day-to-day activities.[57]I accept on the balance of probabilities that, without such treatment, his symptoms would have remained at the previous levels described above. I make this finding on the basis of the occupational health report at p93 and made in stronger terms in the counsellor’s evidence that described the reported benefits as having been the consequence of treatment with Sertraline (to help with symptom management) and the therapy that the claimant had had. The position from April 2024 – July 2024[58]The relevant period of the purposes of this claim ends on 4 July 2024, at the latest.[59]In his IS the claimant described symptoms at the date of his statement: May 2025 and spoke as if his symptoms had been at this continuous level since September 2023. For the reasons given above I do not accept the symptoms remained at that level for that period. In saying this I am not finding that the claimant was deliberately seeking to mislead the tribunal. It is simply that he has not sought to call carefully to mind how his symptoms manifested in specific periods of time some time ago. 10 of 13 His recollection in May 2025 or now in September 2025 as to symptoms a year previously in January 2024 – July 2024 is not reliable.[60]I find on the balance of probabilities that his improvement was maintained at this time such that he remained symptom-free as a result of the treatment he had received in what was a relatively short period of just over two months from the end of April to early July 2024, where, as I have previously stated, he was recorded as having successfully dealt with the impact of his dismissal without any adverse symptoms or effects. Beyond July 2024[61]It may well be that in May 2025 or now C now has some symptoms that can be attributed to C-PTSD, but I do not need to address this because the date at which I must consider whether C was disabled is in period October 2023 – July 2024 and not thereafter. The issue of how long an impairment is likely to last or whether likely to recur should be determined at the date of the discriminatory act or acts and not the date of the tribunal hearing.[62]While the claimant gave some evidence as to recurrence of his condition, there was no medical evidence before me setting out the nature of his condition or the likelihood of recurrence. The claimant’s own summary of the history of his symptoms was that they ‘have lain dormant’ and that of the Counsellor is that reliving past trauma and his C-PTSD symptoms have only been triggered by the events of 2023 and manifested as a consequence of that trigger/s. The claimant’s condition is a complex one where possible future effects and a likelihood of recurrence are, in my view, matters that would require medical evidence, ideally specialist medical evidence. It is not something upon which I find it is appropriate for me to take a view in the absence of such evidence. CONCLUSIONS “Substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities”
CONCLUSIONS
[63]I find that in the period from and including October 2023 to early January 2024 the symptoms of the claimant’s mental health impairment (namely C-PTSD) had an adverse effect on his normal day to day activities that was more than minor or trivial.[64]Further I find that were it not for treatment in late December 2023 – end April 2024 these substantial adverse effects would have continued in that period.[65]I do not find that the effects were substantial prior to October 2023 because:65.1 The claimant did not give any evidence about the precise effects at that time until his oral evidence. When he did give oral evidence, that evidence was 11 of 13 long after events and lacking in detail and precision and not consisted with the documentary evidence,65.2 There were events after 25 September, i.e. the announcement of two investigations and increasing circulation of covert recording and the news broadcast on 23 October 2023 which caused increased symptoms from a minor level to a more significant level over time, and65.3 He continued to attend work until 9 October 2023.[66]I find that the actual and deduced substantial adverse effects of the claimant’s impairment lasted a period of some six months or slightly longer from October 2023 to 26 April 2024. Long term – likely to last 12 months[67]I do not accept that the symptoms were likely to be long term when judged at any point over the period October 2023 – 4 July 2024 (in the sense that they could well last at least 12 months).[68]It was not anticipated at the time of the OH report that the substantial adverse effects would be long term. They were considered to be temporary and it was anticipated that they would resolve as the claimant worked through various processes at work.[69]By December 2023, the substantial adverse effects had lasted two months but it could not be said at that stage that they could well last at least 12 months when treatment had been prescribed and was due to commence early January 2024.[70]The claimant responded positively to the therapies he was undertaking. Given that, I consider that if asked at the time a medical professional would not have considered that the substantial adverse effects “could well” last for 12 months or more. The claimant has not provided any evidence to the effect that, at this time, a medical professional would have taken the view the effects could well last 12 months. All the evidence as to the positive effects of the treatment and therapies the claimant was receiving point towards this being a short term condition.[71]The relevant OH reports show that by early March, the claimant’s symptoms had resolved to a level below minor or trivial or would in the alternative have been very likely to resolve to that level in short period of time. By the end of April 2024 they had resolved and no treatment was ongoing.[72]The claimant has not persuaded me that at any point in the relevant time frame it could properly be said that his symptoms were likely to last at least twelve months. Long term – likely to recur[73]As set out above, medical evidence (or a lack of it) will often be critical in establishing that a substantial adverse effect is likely to recur. For the reasons 12 of 13 given earlier in this decision, the claimant has not established a long term effect based on a likelihood of recurrence. Closing comments[74]By this judgment I do not intend to minimise the effect of his condition on the claimant. I accept that in layman’s terms he found it disabling during a particular period of time. It is simply that, when judged at the time of the alleged discrimination, it does not satisfy the EqA definition of disability – in particular the requirement that it had or was likely to have a long term adverse effect on normal day to day activities when that likelihood is assessed during the period October 2023 to July 2024. Approved by: