Miss R A Aidoo v Redspot Care Ltd: 6019222/2024
REASONS
[1]The respondent’s application dated 15 April 2025 for reconsideration of my Judgment dated 1 April 2025, which was sent to the parties on 4 April 2025, is dismissed as I consider that it has no reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked. My brief reasons for this decision is set out below.[2]On 1 April 2025, I heard the final hearing of the claim by Rita Akua Aidoo against Redspot Care Limited and made the following Judgement: 2.1. The respondent’s name is amended to Redspot Care Limited. 2.2. The claimant’s claim of unauthorized deduction from wages is well-founded and succeeds. 1 of 7 2.3. The respondent shall pay the claimant the sum of £10,412.18 without deduction of tax or National Insurance by 15 April 2025.[3]The Judgment was sent to the partis on 4 April 2025. On 15 April 2025, Evans Kureya, the Director of the respondent emailed the Tribunal but did not copy in the claimant. The covering email “deeply apologised” for the respondent’s nonattendance at the final hearing, which it said were: “…due to an internal administrative oversight, compounded by operational difficulties within our organisation. Full details are set out in the attached letter, signed by myself as Director of Redspot Care Ltd.”[4]The attached letter stated: APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 70 Dear Tribunal, I write on behalf of Redspot Care Ltd to respectfully request a reconsideration of the Judgment delivered on 1 April 2025, in the matter of Miss RA Aidoo v Redspot Care Ltd.[1]Apology for Non-Attendance First and foremost, I wish to express our sincere and profound apologies for not attending the final hearing. Unfortunately, we missed the hearing due to an internal administrative oversight, where the hearing date was not properly registered within our internal systems. Compounding this issue, Redspot Care Ltd has been significantly impacted by wider difficulties in the social care sector, including staffing cuts and a transition to remote working across much of our administrative team. This has diminished our capacity to maintain normal communication and diary management functions. These combined factors regrettably led to our non-attendance, and we acknowledge the seriousness of that outcome.[2]Grounds for Reconsiderationa. Payroll Error and Incorrect Rate The judgment awarded a total of £10,412.18 to the claimant based on payroll records. However, the original payments were made in error using an incorrect rate. The claimant was paid a standard hourly rate, rather than the correct live-in carer rate of £5.00 per hour, which was clearly agreed and applicable from 7July 2024. 2 of 7 This rate is consistent with guidance from HMRC and Acas regarding live-in care arrangements, where care workers reside at the client’s home and are entitled to reduced hourly rates due to long periods of rest or sleep. HMRC Live-in Carer Pay Guidance: https://www.gov.uk/national- minimum-wage-accommodationb. Recalculation of Payments A full review of the payments shows: Month Net Pay Issued Correct Pay (@ £5/hour) Month 4 £4,544.95 £2,021.64 Month 5 £2,702.65 £1,177.54 Month 6 £3,164.58 £1,848.84 Total Paid: £10,412.18 Correct Total: £5,048.02 An additional advance payment of £1,200 was also made, bringing the total overpayment to £3,848.02.[3]Proposal for Settlement We are fully committed to resolving this matter and acknowledge the claimant is owed £3,848.02. We propose a monthly repayment plan of £500, with the first payment to be made immediately upon agreement.[4]Request for Written Reasons (if required) Should the Tribunal determine not to allow reconsideration, we formally request written reasons for the judgment in order to explore the open of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, if necessary. Conclusion We ask the Tribunal to reconsider this matter in the interests of justice, given that the decision was made without hearing our evidence or the corrected financial breakdown. We respectfully request that this application be granted and remain available to attend any further hearing required. Thank you for your Ime and understanding. 3 of 7Conclusion
[5]The respondent’s letter contained no documentary evidence to support the assertions made.[6]The claimant was employed as a Care Worker by the respondent, a provider of staff for domiciliary care and healthcare from 5 December 2022 to 10 September 2024.[7]The claimant started early conciliation with ACAS on 17 September 2023 and obtained an EC certificate dated 29 October 2024. The prospective respondent named was “Redspot Care Ltd”. The claimant presented her ET1 on 20 November 2024. In it she named the respondent as “Redspot Care Ltd” and stated its address to be “65, Chadwell Heath Lane, Romford, RM6 4NP. That is the respondent’s registered address at Companies House and the address that all correspondence from the Tribunal was sent to.[8]Paragraph 8.2 of the claimant’s ET1 stated: “I have been working with them since December 2022. Everything was fine until they started not paying us at the right time which started January of 2024.I made a lot of complaints to them about their inability to pay me on time since it was affecting my life which they apologised with emails and assured me they are going to pay on time but it proved futile. A lot of attempts were made by going to the office to speak with my manager, finance manager and my supervisor but all proved futile. Since they encouraged me to continue working and that they will pay. It became worse when they refused to pay my wages for three (3) months continuous thus from 16 June to 16 September 2024, and also without payslips which I will use as a prove for working with them. I had to pressurise them for weeks before they finally gave me my three months payslips on the 22/10/2024 without the money. I have called the office several times, walked in personally for my money but they only tell me they will pay without giving me specific date for my wages to be paid into my account. I visited the office one day and told them if they don’t give me my money am not leaving the office and upon staying in the office till 9pm they saw how serious I am and they paid me £1200 out of £10412.18 of my wages and promised to pay the rest later, for which they keep postponing. 4 of 7 Even after reporting to Acas for reconciliation, they have decided for us not to come into conclusion.”[9]The Tribunal coded the claim as one of unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[10]On 29 November 2023, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Hearing to the parties, listing the final hearing for one hour at 12:00pm on 1 April 2025. Notice of Hearing also made the following case management orders: 10.1. The respondent was instructed to complete and submit its response form (ET3) by 27 December 2024 or risk a Judgment being issued against it; 10.2. The parties were given a link to join the final hearing by video; 10.3. The claimant was ordered to supply a document setting out how much she was claiming and how it was calculated and copies of any supporting documents and evidence within 4 weeks of 29 November 2024; 10.4. The respondent was ordered to supply its supporting documents and evidence within 6 weeks of 29 November 2024; and 10.5. Both parties were ordered to bring 2 copies of their documents and evidence to the final hearing.[11]The respondent did not file an ET3 within the prescribed time or at all.[12]On 14 March 2025, the file was referred to an Employment Judge to consider making a Rule 22 Judgment (a Judgment in the case made without a hearing). As the claimant had not supplied any evidence or documents that would enable a Judge to assess the amount due to the claimant, no Judgment was made.[13]On 14 March 2025, the Tribunal also wrote to the respondent to notify it that it had not presented a response to the claim and would need the permission of the Tribunal to participate in the final hearing. On the same date, the claimant was reminded that she had not submitted her documents and was requested to do so by 28 March 2025.[14]On 25 March 2025, the claimant submitted her offer letter from the respondent, her payslips, and her schedule of remedy.[15]On 31 March 2025, both parties were notified that the time of the hearing had been changed to 2:00pm.[16]Before the hearing, I read the Tribunal’s digital file. The documents that the claimant had submitted on 25 March had not been uploaded to the digital file.[17]I started the hearing at 2:00pm. The claimant told me that she had submitted her documents previously, so I asked her to submit them again, which she did. I adjourned the hearing util 2:20pm to read the documents. 5 of 7[18]On the resumption of the hearing, I heard the evidence of the claimant, who gave her evidence on affirmation. After hearing the claimant’s evidence, I considered the case ad made my decision that was then typed up as the Judgment of 1 April 2025 referred to above.Findings of Fact
[19]I made the following findings of fact: 19.1. The correct name of the respondent at Companies House is Redspot Care Limited. 19.2. The claimant was employed as a Care Worker by the respondent, a provider of staff for domiciliary care and healthcare from 5 December 2022 to 10 September 2024. 19.3. The claimant started early conciliation with ACAS on 17 September 2023 and obtained an EC certificate dated 29 October 2024. 19.4. The offer of employment letter from the respondent to the claimant set out the following terms: 19.4.1. The claimant was to be paid one week in arrears at a rate of £10.65 to £12.50 per hour; and 19.4.2. The contract was for a minimum of 40 hours per week. 19.5. The claimant was not paid for her work for three months between 16 June 2024 and the end of her employment. 19.6. The respondent’s payslips for these periods were for its tax periods for Months 4, 5 and 6. Those payslips show the following sums due to the claimant: 19.6.1. Month 4 - £6,508.13 gross - £4,544.95 net; 19.6.2. Month 5 - £4,442.32 gross - £2,702.65 net; 19.6.3. Month 6 - £4,350.20 gross – £3,164.58 net; giving totals of 19.6.4. Total - £15,300.65 gross - £10,412.18 net.[20]I find the claimant’s evidence of her earnings was credible and unchallenged by the respondent at any stage until the application for reconsideration was made.[21]The respondent’s application for reconsideration contained no documentary evidence that supported the wholly improbable assertion that the claimant’s hourly rate of pay was £5.00 per hour.[22]The respondent’s application did not dispute the hours worked by the claimant; it only disputed the rate of pay. 6 of 7[23]Given the complete failure of the respondent to engage with the Tribunal process until after Judgment had been given, I find that its application for reconsideration has no reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked.[24]My original Judgment remains as sent to the parties on 4 April 2025. Approved by EJ ShoreFindings of Fact
[1]The respondent’s name is amended to Redspot Care Limited.[2]The claimant’s claim of unauthorised deduction from wages is well-founded and succeeds.[3]The respondent shall pay the claimant the sum of £10,412.18 without deduction of tax or National Insurance by 15 April 2025. Approved by: