Dismissed on a council report alone: care home deputy manager wins unfair dismissal claim
A deputy manager with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after her employer relied solely on a council safeguarding report without conducting its own investigation or disciplinary hearing. The Watford tribunal awarded £26,926.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #safeguarding
- #council-investigation
- #no-internal-investigation
- #acas-code-uplift
- #care-home
Key facts
- The claimant was summarily dismissed on 8 May 2020 for alleged gross misconduct.
- The respondent relied on a safeguarding report from Bedford Borough Council but did not conduct its own investigation or disciplinary hearing.
- The claimant was not informed of the precise allegations against her before dismissal.
- The respondent refused to hear the claimant's appeal, stating it was guided by the Council.
- The tribunal found the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a Support Worker at Wadelow Grange.
-
Promoted to Senior Support Worker
Claimant became Senior Support Worker at the Bungalow.
-
Promoted to Deputy Manager
Claimant became Deputy Manager at Avon House.
-
Safeguarding concern received
An anonymous call was made to the mother of a service user about the claimant's conduct.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was suspended on full pay by Jodi Smith; she was not told the specific allegations.
-
Case conference meeting
The Council's safeguarding enquiry upheld the allegation of psychological/emotional abuse.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed by letter from Mr Gohel for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal, raising procedural failures.
-
Appeal rejected
Mr Gohel rejected the appeal, stating they were guided by the Council.
-
ET1 presented
Claimant presented a claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the deputy manager for gross misconduct based solely on a council safeguarding report, without carrying out its own investigation or disciplinary process.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the dismissal was unfair. The employer failed to conduct any investigation of its own, did not hold a disciplinary hearing, and refused to hear the employee's appeal. The decision was based entirely on a council report that the employee was not given a chance to respond to.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £1,614
- Compensatory award: £25,312.03
- Total: £26,926.03
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must conduct their own reasonable investigation before dismissing, even if an external body has produced a report.
- Employees must be told the precise allegations against them and given a chance to respond before dismissal.
- Refusing to hear an appeal because 'the council said so' is not a valid reason and will likely render a dismissal unfair.
- An ACAS code uplift of up to 25% may be applied if the employer fails to follow basic disciplinary procedures.
This case shows what can happen when an employer outsources its disciplinary responsibilities to an external body. The deputy manager, who had worked for the care home for over three years, was suspended after an anonymous safeguarding concern was raised about her conduct. The employer then waited for the local council's safeguarding investigation to conclude, and when the council upheld the allegation of psychological abuse, the employer dismissed her by letter the same day.
What went wrong
The employer did not carry out any investigation of its own. It did not interview the claimant or give her a chance to respond to the specific allegations. It did not hold a disciplinary hearing. When the claimant appealed, the employer rejected the appeal on the basis that it was 'guided by the Council'. The tribunal found this was a complete abdication of the employer's duty to act fairly.
The tribunal noted that the employer could have used the council report as a starting point for its own investigation, but instead treated it as a binding verdict. The employer also failed to follow its own disciplinary policy and the ACAS Code of Practice.
Why this matters
For employees in regulated sectors like care, it is common for external bodies such as local authorities or the CQC to be involved. But this case confirms that employers cannot simply outsource their disciplinary decisions. They must still carry out a reasonable investigation, inform the employee of the case against them, and give them a fair opportunity to respond.
The total award of £26,926.03 reflects the claimant's loss of earnings and the failure to follow proper process. The case also serves as a reminder that an employer's refusal to hear an appeal can be a further procedural failing that strengthens a claim for unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing care home employee wins liability but loses remedy after failing to attend hearing
A care home employee who was unfairly dismissed for raising food hygiene and safeguarding concerns won her liability case, but the remedy claim was dismissed when she did not attend the hearing.
Care worker dismissed for mistreating dementia resident: unfair process but no compensation
A care home worker was unfairly dismissed after procedural flaws, but the tribunal found her guilty of the alleged misconduct and reduced compensation to zero.
Headteacher unfairly dismissed for engaging a prohibited teacher: flawed investigation and no consideration of alternatives
A headteacher with over five years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into his decision to engage a former teacher subject to a Prohibition Order. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider alternatives to dismissal.
Senior carer sacked after raising resident safety concerns: automatic unfair dismissal
A senior night carer was automatically unfairly dismissed after raising concerns about resident neglect and safety at a care home. The tribunal awarded £24,594 in compensation.