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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #visitor-parking-permits
- #gross-misconduct
- #procedural-unfairness
- #whistleblowing
Key facts
- The claimant was employed for 16 years, most recently as Deputy Customer Services and Housing Options Manager.
- She made four protected disclosures about the safety of two elderly brothers and a breach of duty of care.
- She was dismissed for gross misconduct for using visitor parking permits to park near her office.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to inadequate investigation and a flawed disciplinary process.
- The claimant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing) failed; ordinary unfair dismissal succeeded.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondents.
-
Restructure interview
Claimant interviewed for restructure; her car was seen with a visitor parking permit.
-
Fraud investigation started
Dave Worth reported the claimant to SWLFP for misuse of visitor permits.
-
Protected disclosures made
Claimant disclosed concerns about the brothers' safety to Ms Jameson and Ms Bernadello.
-
PACE interview
Claimant interviewed under caution; made no comment.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended pending disciplinary investigation.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal against dismissal heard and rejected.
-
Final judgment
Tribunal found ordinary unfair dismissal but not automatic unfair dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for misuse of visitor parking permits was unfair, and whether it was automatically unfair because the real reason was her protected disclosures about the safety of two elderly brothers.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The investigation was inadequate and the disciplinary process flawed, meaning the council did not act within the range of reasonable responses. However, the claim for automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing) failed because the protected disclosures were not the principal reason for dismissal.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £11,029.00
- Compensatory award: £24,289.56
- Total: £35,318.56
Lessons & takeaways
- A thorough investigation is essential before dismissing for misconduct; cutting corners can make a dismissal unfair.
- Even if an employee has made protected disclosures, a fair process for a separate misconduct issue can still lead to a lawful dismissal.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a more rigorous process; a failure to consider their length of service can be a factor in finding unfairness.
A 16-year career ended over parking permits
The claimant had worked for the council for 16 years, most recently as Deputy Customer Services and Housing Options Manager. In late 2019, she raised concerns about the safety of two elderly brothers facing eviction. Shortly after, she was investigated for using visitor parking permits to park near her office. She was suspended and later dismissed for gross misconduct.
The tribunal found that while the claimant had made protected disclosures, the council's decision to dismiss was based on the misconduct, not the disclosures. However, the dismissal was still unfair because the process was flawed. The investigation was inadequate and the disciplinary hearing did not properly consider all the evidence.
What the council could have done differently
The tribunal highlighted several failings. The investigator did not interview key witnesses or fully explore the claimant's explanation. The disciplinary panel did not consider whether a lesser penalty was appropriate, especially given her long service and clean record. A more thorough investigation and a fairer hearing could have avoided the finding of unfairness.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case shows that even when an employee has made whistleblowing disclosures, a separate misconduct issue can still lead to a fair dismissal — but only if the employer follows a proper process. For employees, it is a reminder that protected disclosures do not give immunity from disciplinary action. For employers, it is a warning that procedural shortcuts can be costly, even when the underlying misconduct is genuine.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing dismissal: interim relief refused for former employee
A former employee who claimed she was automatically unfairly dismissed for making 11 protected disclosures has been refused interim relief by the tribunal, which found it unlikely she would succeed at the final hearing.
Practice Business Manager dismissed for claiming £15,900 overtime from COVID-19 fund without authorisation
A Practice Business Manager with 16 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after claiming overtime from the COVID-19 Support Fund without partner approval. The tribunal rejected her claims of whistleblowing and unfair dismissal.
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.
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.