They'll need to issue 2,588 parking tickets to cover this one!

Parking enforcement company APCOA ordered to pay £155,289.40 to ex employee. Tribunal Judge refers to APCOA staff as liars who tried to mislead the Tribunal.

If you’re not a fan of parking enforcement companies, read on. . . .

A tribunal has recently found in favour of ex APCOA employee, Mrs Anne Roberts, in her claims of age discrimination, disability discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal.

She started work in 2007 for a parking company called CP Plus. She worked for the company at various locations and only ever had a verbal contract. She was 62 years old and had suffered with severe back problems since 2012. She used walking sticks and required a wheelchair on occasion.

In 2018 she was transferred from CP Plus to APCOA under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations - TUPE.

APCOA had picked up a contract which included an increase in the number of stations Mrs Roberts visited and the requirement that they be litter picked. The contract also required working seven days per week. Their problem was that Mrs Roberts only ever worked Monday to Friday (6.00am to 3.00pm) - she needed the weekends to undertake childcare duties.

They entered a period of ‘consultation’ with her and explained that they expected her to work weekends and litter pick. Obviously this upset Mrs Roberts, she would struggle to litter pick because she could not physically carry rubbish bags. She could not work weekends because of childcare duties.

APCOA then sought to rely on a contractual right to insist she worked at weekends. She had never signed a contract, but they had in their possession a contract from the previous company for an ‘Area Manager’ with Mrs Roberts’ name on and, of course, it had a clause confirming the requirement for weekend work. Under TUPE, virtually all contractual terms and conditions transfer too, so if APCOA could enforce the contract they would be home and dry.

This is where it gets really sneaky . . .

Knowing they did not have her signature on the contract they used a signed copy of a previous pay rise notification and tried to pass it off as her signature to the contract. The tribunal referred to this as ‘misleading’.

Chelsey Smith, Human Resources Manager and Jay Jenkins, Contract Manager, both appeared before the tribunal on behalf of APCOA. To say that neither came out smelling of roses, is an understatement. Ms Smith and another manager said Mrs Roberts was too old and should retire - ‘she would not receive any redundancy pay from APCOA’.

Neither would acknowledge that Mrs Roberts had a disability, not withstanding they had met her on a number of occasions, she had a blue badge in the company van and she had been signed off with work induced stress.

Mrs Roberts was clearly suffering at the hands off APCOA and the tribunal were minded to believe her. I rarely come across cases where witnesses have so blatantly lied and been called out as such by the tribunal in their written reasons.

Tribunal comments in respect of her age

‘Ms Smith denies it. We have no faith in her honesty. Mrs Roberts is wholly consistent in her account.’

‘We accept that the remark was made, it was made on the grounds of Mrs Robert’s age. It was shocking and hurtful.’

Comments in respect of her contract

Ms Smith and Mr Jenkins tried to trick Mrs Roberts into accepting that there was a contract that she had signed that authorised them to regard her as contractually bound to work weekends. They created a document that would be evidence in future that such a contract existed. That is a cheap and nasty trick and dishonest. They then tried to mislead the Tribunal.

She (Ms Smith) is an HR manager. She knew what the file contained and that it did not contain a signed contract.

Ms Smith is a participant in this deceit and culpable

There are many more comments regarding the credibility of the APCOA witnesses, far too many to set out here, but if you have a spare 20 minutes the full written reasons of Mrs Anne Roberts v APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd are a good read!

Needless to say the tribunal took a very dim view of the Respondent. They upheld all Mrs Roberts’ claims and awarded a substantial package to her to reflect the trauma she had suffered. It’s not often aggravated damages are awarded in tribunal claims but this case is an exception.

Costs

Costs are rarely awarded in employment tribunals. Claims have to be misconceived or the parties must be shown to have acted unreasonably. It is not surprising this was a case where the Respondent was ordered to pay costs to the tune of £15,000. Counsel for Mrs Roberts exposed their lying and deceit. See the breakdown below.

Comment

I’m totally surprised this case came before the tribunal. Given the lack of evidence on behalf of Respondent, the obvious mistreatment of Mrs Roberts, the failure to follow a reasonable grievance process, the knowledge she clearly had a disability and comments about her age would appear to make their case indefensible.

The Tribunal commented that two of their witness statements were identical save for a few lines. Witnesses tried to distance themselves from their statements, claiming they were written by their representatives, but the fact is, the statements are their evidence and they sign to affirm them.

It’s not uncommon for professional representatives to draft witness statements, but they must do so having gathered evidence from their witnesses and then they must explain to the witness that the statement is their evidence, so if they don’t agree with something - they amend it. It would appear in this case they were drafted to suit the narrative put forward by their representative.

Either way, with knowledge of such blatant disregard for employment law principles, the obvious route would be to attempt settlement between the parties. They would certainly avoid punitive costs if they had.

Perhaps settlement was discussed, perhaps the parties could not agree a figure - we will never know. What is for certain, is that APCOA would not have had to pay the additional costs award or some of the costs for their own legal representation. Of course, they may have had legal expenses insurance, but even then I would have thought the insurer would identify this as a hopeless defence and look to settle.

Award

In ordinary unfair dismissal cases there is a statutory cap of £89,493, or a years’ gross pay - whichever is the lower amount. In this case Mrs Roberts received £6,370.20 for that element of the claim. However, because this included discrimination - both age and disability - there is no statutory cap, hence the substantial award of £133,919.20. See the breakdown below.

The total amount ordered to be paid to Mrs Roberts was £155,289.40, which at a minimum of £60 for a parking ticket equates to 2,588 tickets.