Mr R Seabrook v Home Regeneration Ltd: 6010837/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The Respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant’s wages. The Respondent is ordered to pay the sum of £3548.52 (net) to the Claimant.REASONS
[1]This had been scheduled as a hearing under what was (at the time notice of hearing was sent) Rule 21, and is now Rule 22.[2]Mr M Hoey attended for the Respondent. He did not seek to depart from what he wrote in the ET3, which stated the claim was not defended.[3]It was not necessary to take any formal witness evidence, as the Claimant had produced records from HMRC about what he was supposed to have been paid (and what tax and national insurance was supposed to have been deducted as PAYE) and Mr Hoey did not dispute those figures.[4]The Claimant did not allege any shortfall in wages for the period up to April 2024. For the period May, June, July 2024, the Claimant ought to have received £4692 gross, which would have been £4248.52 after tax and national insurance. Case No: 6010837/2024[5]In fact, the Respondent paid £700 net for that period.[6]The shortfall is therefore £3548.52 net.[7]Mr Hoey suggested that the above sum did not take into account any deductions for pension. The Claimant stated that he had made enquiries, and the Respondent had made no payments to the pension fund (for the relevant period, at least). Mr Hoey had no evidence that any part of the wages properly payable had been lawfully deducted by way of employee pension contributions (or that the Respondent had properly accounted to the pension provider for such sums). He stated that these matters were handled by the company’s accountant.[8]In these circumstances, my decision is that the Respondent is ordered to pay £3548.52 net to the Claimant and the Respondent must not deduct any PAYE (or any other sum) from this amount.