Claimant v Valley Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant failed to establish that he had asserted a valid statutory right. His claimed right to be paid for travel time between home and first/last jobs did not exist as a statutory right. The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct (fraudulent timekeeping and attempts to inflate hours worked), with performance as a lesser factor, not any assertion of a statutory right.
The claimant failed to prove overtime was properly payable under his contract. He had not worked the hours claimed, included non-payable travel time, and had not obtained advance manager authorisation as required. The deductions for van repairs (£60) and vacuum cleaner (£190) were authorised by clauses 15 and 19 of the contract which the claimant had signed, and the amounts were not excessive.
Although the claimant had passed probation by the three-month mark and was contractually entitled to two weeks' notice, the tribunal found he had committed gross misconduct (falsifying timesheets and fraudulently claiming wages for time not worked). This repudiatory breach released the respondent from any obligation to provide notice or payment in lieu. The one week's pay given was a goodwill gesture.
Facts
Mr Peat was employed as a Heating Engineer by Valley Group Limited from 24 February to 17 June 2025. During his probationary period, managers identified multiple performance and conduct issues including late starts, early finishes, logging work time when tracker data showed he was at home, claiming pay for non-payable travel time, and attempting to solicit customer business for himself. At a probationary review meeting on 16 June 2025, the claimant became agitated when confronted with evidence of discrepancies between his timesheets and tracking data. Managers concluded he had falsified timesheets to fraudulently inflate wages and dismissed him for gross misconduct. Deductions were made from his final pay for van repairs, valeting, and a missing vacuum cleaner.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The automatic unfair dismissal claim failed because the claimant had not asserted a valid statutory right and the reason for dismissal was his conduct, not any such assertion. The unlawful deduction claims failed because overtime was not properly payable under the contract and the other deductions were contractually authorised. The breach of contract claim for notice pay failed because, although the claimant had passed probation and was entitled to two weeks' notice, his gross misconduct (fraudulent timekeeping) constituted a repudiatory breach releasing the respondent from any obligation to provide notice.
Practical note
Even where a contractual entitlement to notice exists, gross misconduct amounting to repudiatory breach (such as deliberate falsification of timesheets to inflate wages) releases an employer from the obligation to provide notice or payment in lieu.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001603/2025
- Decision date
- 9 January 2026
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Heating Engineer
- Service
- 4 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No