Housing officer dismissed for email to council criticising employer's eviction decision
A housing officer with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed after sending an unauthorised email to a local council criticising her employer's eviction of a client. The tribunal rejected her whistleblowing claims.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #whistleblowing
- #protected-disclosure
- #conduct-dismissal
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #separability-principle
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Housing and Support Officer from 24 September 2007 until summary dismissal on 12 November 2020.
- On 5 October 2020, the claimant sent an email to Runnymede Borough Council criticizing the respondent's eviction of a client, without consulting her line manager.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, citing the email and assisting the client in obtaining legal advice against the respondent.
- The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, not protected disclosures, applying the separability principle.
- The claimant's whistleblowing detriment claim was struck out as out of time, and all other claims failed.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as a Housing and Support Officer, initially with Hyde In Touch.
-
TUPE transfer
Claimant's employment transferred to Transform Housing and Support under TUPE.
-
Email to Council
Claimant sent an email to Runnymede Borough Council requesting a Stage 1 Review for client GF, criticizing the respondent's eviction decision, without consulting her manager.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into the 5 October email.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended an investigation meeting with Paul Summerton.
-
Investigation report
Investigation report concluded possible breaches of Code of Conduct, recommending disciplinary hearing.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Disciplinary hearing chaired by Viccy Johnson; claimant faced six allegations.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct; all six allegations upheld.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing chaired by Dave Hulme; claimant was supported by a union representative.
-
Appeal rejected
Appeal against dismissal was rejected.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was for conduct (fair) or automatically unfair because it was due to a protected disclosure (whistleblowing). It also considered claims of detriment, victimisation, harassment, and breach of contract.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims. It found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, not whistleblowing, applying the 'separability principle' – the decision-maker did not know of any protected disclosure at the time of dismissal. The disciplinary process was thorough and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
- Unfair dismissal claim: failed
- Automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing): failed
- Wrongful dismissal: failed
- Detriment (whistleblowing): struck out as out of time
- Victimisation, harassment, breach of contract, holiday pay: all failed
- No compensation awarded
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are considering making a protected disclosure, ensure it is made to the right person and in the proper manner – unauthorised external communications may be treated as misconduct.
- Long service does not guarantee protection if you breach clear policies on confidentiality and external communications.
- Tribunals apply the 'separability principle' – if the decision-maker did not know about a protected disclosure, the dismissal is not automatically unfair.
- Whistleblowing detriment claims must be brought within three months of the act – delays can be fatal to the claim.
When a good intention backfires
A Housing and Support Officer with 13 years' service was summarily dismissed after sending an email to Runnymede Borough Council criticising her employer's decision to evict a client. She also helped the client obtain legal advice against the charity. The tribunal found that while she may have acted out of concern for the client, her actions breached the employer's code of conduct and constituted gross misconduct.
What the employer did right
Transform Housing and Support followed a proper disciplinary process: suspension, investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal. The decision-maker considered six allegations and upheld all of them. The tribunal noted that the employer genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for a charity that relies on trust and confidentiality.
Why the whistleblowing claim failed
The claimant argued that her email was a protected disclosure in the public interest. However, the tribunal applied the 'separability principle' – the decision-maker was unaware of any protected disclosure at the time of dismissal. The reason for dismissal was conduct, not whistleblowing. The claimant's detriment claim was also struck out because it was presented too late.
What this means for similar cases
This case shows that even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for unauthorised external communications, especially when they involve criticising the employer to a third party. It also highlights the importance of timing in whistleblowing claims – and that the decision-maker's knowledge is key. For employees, the safest route is to raise concerns internally first, following the employer's whistleblowing policy.
Similar cases
Nursery chef wins £276 after employer deducted nursery fees without permission
A nursery chef who was dismissed after raising concerns about nursery practices failed in her whistleblowing claims but succeeded in recovering £276.49 that her employer deducted from her wages for outstanding nursery fees without her written consent.
Whistleblowing and conduct dismissal: NHS trust's decision upheld
A Health Care Support Worker with four years' service was fairly dismissed for failing to treat a service user with dignity, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims of whistleblowing detriment and race discrimination.
Whistleblowing claims dismissed: council's breakdown of trust was genuine
A Community Development Manager who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case. The tribunal found the council's decision was due to an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not her protected disclosures.
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.