Claimant v Paystream My Max Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal found that the written contract of employment clearly provided for the Respondent to deduct its margin (£17.50), employer's National Insurance, and apprenticeship levy from the £40 per hour paid by the client before calculating the Claimant's pay. The Claimant was paid in accordance with his contract. Alternatively, the Tribunal found the Claimant had affirmed the contractual arrangement by working for three years at the same rate without protest, receiving weekly payslips and invoices showing the deductions, and only raising queries (not objections) in 2021 and 2022 before issuing proceedings in July 2024.
Facts
The Claimant was employed via a payroll company arrangement from May 2021 to work at Trafford Council through a recruitment agency. He claimed his agreed rate was £40 per hour gross, but the Respondent deducted employer's National Insurance, apprenticeship levy, and an administrative margin of £17.50 from the £40 paid by the client. The Claimant was provided with a personal illustration, welcome email, and online access to his contract before starting work. He queried his pay in June 2021 and October 2022 but took no further action after receiving explanations. He issued proceedings in July 2024, nearly three years after starting work, and remained in employment at the time of the hearing.
Decision
The Tribunal dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim. The written contract clearly provided for the Respondent to deduct its costs (including employer's NI, apprenticeship levy, and administrative margin) from the £40 client charge rate before calculating the Claimant's pay. The Claimant had been paid in accordance with that contract. Alternatively, the Claimant had affirmed the contractual arrangement by working for three years at the same rate without protest, making any claim significantly out of time.
Practical note
An employee working under an umbrella/payroll company contract who continues for years receiving the same pay without clear objection will be found to have affirmed the contractual terms, even if they made occasional queries about how their pay was calculated.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6006396/2024
- Decision date
- 22 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- Locum Chartered Legal Executive
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No