Mr V Husiev v Prompt Men Services Ltd (formerly V K Removals Ltd): 6036608/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s complaint of unlawful deductions from wages is well-founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant £9,200.00.[2]The Claimant’s complaint of unpaid statutory holiday pay is well-founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant £4,964.61.[3]The Claimant’s complaint of failure to provide statutory written particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded. The Tribunal makes an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 in the sum of £1,601.68.[4]The Claimant’s complaint concerning payslip and P45 irregularities is well-founded, but the Tribunal makes no separate financial award, all relevant sums having been addressed through other heads of claim.[5]The Claimant’s claim regarding the Respondent’s failure to auto-enrol him into a workplace pension scheme is dismissed. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. Any such complaint lies within the jurisdiction of the Pensions Ombudsman. Case Number: 6036608/2025 2[6]The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant the total sum of: £15,766.29 (Fifteen thousand seven hundred and sixty-six pounds and twenty-nine pence) (Note The sums awarded are gross. Any liability for income tax or National Insurance contributions rests with the Claimant.)REASONS
[1]This claim arises out of the claimant’s employment as a van driver and loader between 15 January 2023 and 1 June 2025. During that time, the respondent operated as V K Removals Ltd before changing its name on 19 June 2025 to Prompt Men Services Ltd. I am satisfied that this was no more than a change of name and that the Respondent remained the same legal entity throughout.[2]The claims before me are for unlawful deductions from wages, unpaid statutory holiday pay, failure to provide statutory written particulars, irregularities concerning payslips and the P45, and an alleged failure to comply with pension auto-enrolment obligations. Both parties appeared without representation. I heard evidence from the parties and considered the documentary material before me.Findings of Fact
[3]A written contract dated 15 January 2023 was provided by the respondent. It provided for payment to the claimant of “65% per each completed job before tax”. It was not issued within the statutory timeframe required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was materially incomplete, omitting, Case Number: 6036608/2025 2 amongst other things, any meaningful provision as to holiday entitlement or working arrangements. Of particular significance is the absence of any term permitting deductions.[4]In practice, however, the respondent operated a system under which fuel and other operating costs were deducted from job revenue before calculating the claimant’s share. The claimant’s evidence was that this arrangement was imposed upon him rather than negotiated or agreed on an informed basis. I accept that evidence. It accords both with the absence of documentary support for the respondent’s position and with the wording of the written contract itself.[5]The respondent maintained that this reflected an agreed arrangement, yet produced no contemporaneous records capable of demonstrating how such deductions were derived or communicated. Given that such material would have been under the respondent’s control, its absence carries weight.[6]No paid annual leave was provided. There are no records showing any payment of holiday pay and nothing within the payslip evidence to suggest that statutory entitlement was met in practice.[7]The payslips themselves were irregular in both timing and content. They were often issued only upon request and do not explain how pay was calculated. Some were issued under the name Prompt Men Services Ltd at dates predating the formal name change. While this does not affect the identity of the employer, it reinforces the broader picture of disorganised record-keeping. The P45 issued on termination was also incorrect and required subsequent correction.[8]The claimant’s earnings are established by the respondent’s own documentation, namely payslips and the P60. The claimant’s calculation of holiday pay is derived directly from those figures. No competing calculation supported by evidence was produced, and I note that the respondent, at one stage, indicated acceptance of the claimant’s figure.[9]It is common ground that no pension contributions were deducted. The pension complaint concerns only an alleged failure to auto-enrol.Analysis
[10]The unlawful deductions claim falls to be considered under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Once it is established that deductions have been made, the issue is whether they were authorised by statute, by the contract, or by prior written consent. None of those bases is established here. The contract contains no such provision; indeed, its wording is inconsistent with the respondent’s case. There is no written consent, and no statutory justification has been advanced.[11]The respondent relies on an asserted oral agreement. In my judgment, that contention is not made out. The absence of contemporaneous documentation is telling, particularly in circumstances where the respondent retained control of the underlying financial material. The lack of transparency in the calculation of deductions further undermines the respondent’s position. Taken together, these Case Number: 6036608/2025 3 matters support the claimant’s account and lead me to conclude that the deductions were not authorised.[12]The position in relation to holiday pay is, in contrast, relatively straightforward. The Working Time Regulations 1998 require payment for statutory annual leave. No evidence has been produced to demonstrate compliance with that obligation. The claimant’s calculation is grounded in his actual earnings and reflects the statutory entitlement. It has not been displaced by any evidentially supported alternative. I therefore accept it.[13]The respondent’s failure to provide compliant written particulars engages section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The breach is both prolonged and substantive. It is not merely technical; the absence of clear written terms contributed directly to the uncertainty surrounding pay and holiday entitlement in this case. In those circumstances, and given that substantive claims succeed, the maximum award of four weeks’ pay is appropriate. Calculated by reference to the claimant’s P60, that produces £1,601.68.[14]The deficiencies in payslips and the P45 are clear and form part of the wider picture of inadequate administration. However, the statutory remedy for payslip failures is limited and overlaps with the unlawful deductions claim. To make a further award would add nothing to the remedy already granted.[15]The pension complaint concerns auto-enrolment obligations arising under the Pensions Act 2008. That is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal, and the claim must therefore be dismissed on that basis.Conclusions
[16]For those reasons, I conclude that the deductions from the claimant’s wages were unlawful and I award £9,200.00. I am satisfied that he did not receive statutory holiday pay and award £4,964.61. In light of the respondent’s failure to provide compliant written particulars, I make an award of £1,601.68 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. No separate award is made in respect of payslips or the P45, and the pension claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.[17]The total award is therefore £15,766.29, expressed as gross, with responsibility for any tax and National Insurance resting upon the Claimant. Approved by: