Cleaner with 29 years' service found to be self-employed: tribunal lacks jurisdiction
A cleaner who worked for 29 years cleaning common parts of a building was found to be genuinely self-employed, meaning the tribunal had no power to hear her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #self-employed
- #substitution-clause
- #lack-of-control
- #mutuality-of-obligation
- #cleaning-worker
Key facts
- Ms Randall cleaned common parts of Scottish Provident House from 1990 to April 2020.
- She was paid £55 per week, later £55.70, by Miss Gurney from her personal account.
- No tax or NI was deducted from payments.
- Ms Randall regularly arranged substitutes (Ms De Sanchez or Carlos) to cover her work during extended visits to Colombia.
- Miss Gurney did not supervise Ms Randall after an initial two-week period.
- The tribunal found Ms Randall had an unfettered right to provide substitutes and was not subject to control or mutuality of obligation.
Timeline
-
Agreement reached
Ms Randall met Miss Gurney at a bus stop and agreed to clean common parts of Scottish Provident House for £55 per week, Monday to Friday between 7 PM and 8 AM.
-
Work commenced
Ms Randall began cleaning work, initially supervised for two weeks, then left to her own devices.
-
Pay increase
Weekly pay increased to £55.70.
-
First quality letter
Miss Gurney wrote to Ms Randall noting cleaning deficiencies and listing tasks to be performed.
-
Second quality letter
Miss Gurney again wrote about cleaning standards, warning that if not improved she would get someone else.
-
Work ended
Ms Randall stopped cleaning at Scottish Provident House.
-
Claim presented
Ms Randall presented a claim form to the Employment Tribunal alleging unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and other claims.
-
Preliminary hearing day 1
Hearing to determine employment status held via CVP.
-
Preliminary hearing day 2
Hearing continued; Mr Sprack withdrew claim against Merali's Limited during closing submissions.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Green found Ms Randall was truly self-employed and the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee or worker of the respondents, or whether she was genuinely self-employed, and thus whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear her claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and other payments.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim because it had no jurisdiction. The claimant was found to be genuinely self-employed, not an employee or worker.
Key reasons:
- The claimant had an unfettered right to provide substitutes (e.g., Ms De Sanchez or Carlos) to cover her work during extended visits to Colombia.
- Miss Gurney did not supervise the claimant after an initial two-week period.
- No tax or NI was deducted from payments, and the claimant was paid a flat weekly rate.
- There was no mutuality of obligation beyond each engagement.
No compensation was awarded because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have an unrestricted right to send a substitute to do your work, you are likely to be self-employed rather than an employee or worker.
- Long service alone does not make you an employee if the working relationship lacks control and mutuality of obligation.
- Paying someone a flat rate without deducting tax or NI is a strong indicator of self-employment, not employment.
- If you want to bring an employment claim, you must first establish your employment status – the tribunal cannot hear claims from genuine independent contractors.
- A verbal agreement that includes a substitution clause can be enough to show self-employment, even if the substitute is rarely used.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how a long-standing working relationship can still be classified as self-employment if the key legal tests are not met. The claimant cleaned common parts of a building for 29 years, but the tribunal focused on three critical factors: the unfettered right to send a substitute, the lack of control by the engager, and the absence of mutual obligations beyond each cleaning session. Even though she worked regularly for nearly three decades, the tribunal found she was in business on her own account.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant argued that she was an employee or worker, but the evidence showed she regularly arranged substitutes to cover her work during extended trips to Colombia. The tribunal noted that this substitution right was not restricted – she did not need permission to send someone else. If the claimant had wanted employee status, she would have needed to show that she was personally required to do the work and that Miss Gurney exercised control over how she worked. The lack of supervision after the first two weeks and the flat weekly payment without tax deductions further undermined her case.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that the 'substitution clause' is often decisive in employment status cases. Workers who have a genuine, unfettered right to provide a substitute are highly likely to be self-employed, regardless of how long they have worked for the same engager. For anyone considering bringing an employment claim, it is essential to first establish whether they are an employee, worker, or self-employed. The tribunal cannot hear claims from independent contractors, no matter how long they have worked or how unfair their dismissal may seem.
Similar cases
Dog walker with set hours found to be employee: unfair dismissal and age discrimination win
A dog walker who worked set hours for five years was found to be an employee, not a self-employed contractor, and awarded over £11,700 for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
Working through a limited company? You may still be an employee
A tribunal ruled that a commissioning director with 24 years' service remained an employee even after switching to a consultancy agreement via his own limited company.
Cleaner with 8 years' service denied holiday pay: worker status upheld
A cleaner who worked for eight years but was never paid for holidays won £162.71 in holiday pay after the tribunal ruled she was a worker, not an employee.
Self-employed music teacher at Cranleigh School fails to prove worker status
A visiting music teacher who signed a self-employed agreement was found not to be an employee or worker, and his claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay, and holiday pay were dismissed.