Claimant v Look Ahead Care and Support Limited

The claimant alleged that prohibiting a service user from having her boyfriend in her bedroom breached human rights and the Mental Capacity Act. The tribunal found that the claimant did not hold a reasonable belief that there had been a relevant failure. She formed her view without adequate enquiry into the nature of the tenancy or the lawfulness of the restriction. The tribunal concluded there was no protected disclosure, so all whistleblowing detriment claims failed.

The tribunal found the claimant was placed on a performance improvement plan because her work was inadequate, particularly her DASH risk assessment. The respondent had legitimate concerns about the claimant's performance. The reason for the treatment was poor performance, not disability. The respondent's explanation was established and the claim failed.

The tribunal found that a protected act occurred on 26 June 2023 when the claimant requested reasonable adjustments. However, the alleged detrimental treatment (performance improvement plan) was instigated on 23 June 2023, before the protected act. Further allegations of victimisation in claim two (including extension of probation, refusal to hear grievance, withdrawal of special leave, reduction of pay, ignoring emails, advertising role, removing client work) all failed because the respondent established legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for each action.

The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of Crohn's disease and generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). The PCP of permitting amendments to DASH risk assessments did put the claimant at a disadvantage (increased anxiety). However, the requested adjustment—prohibiting all amendments to DASH assessments—was not reasonable. Given the vulnerability of clients and the critical importance of accurate risk assessments, it was essential that inadequate assessments could be corrected to protect clients from violence. The respondent did not breach the duty.

The claimant alleged that on 28 June 2023, Ms Spence told her she could not class herself as having a disability because she was not a GP. The tribunal found this did not occur. The claimant covertly recorded the meeting but disclosed only a partial transcript. The tribunal accepted Ms Spence's evidence that the conversation was supportive and reasonable, exploring difficulties of diagnosis appropriately. There were no facts from which harassment could be inferred.

The claimant resigned on 8 February 2024, alleging constructive dismissal. The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The respondent acted reasonably and appropriately throughout. There was no fundamental breach capable of acceptance, so no dismissal occurred. Even if there had been a breach, the claimant failed to prove her reason for resignation, and there was no protected disclosure to found a s.103A claim in any event.