Refused to falsify paperwork for insurance claim: whistleblowing claim fails but dismissal unfair
A head of property management who refused to create false documents for an insurance claim was unfairly dismissed. The tribunal found the employer manufactured allegations and predetermined the outcome.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #manufactured-allegations
- #whistleblowing-claim-dismissed
- #acas-code-uplift
- #failure-to-provide-statement
- #financial-penalty
- #pornography-in-workplace
- #furlough-abuse
Key facts
- Mr Williams was a Property Manager promoted to Head of Property Management, employed from 2016 until dismissal on 4 February 2021.
- In April 2019, a tenant moved into 85 Hove Avenue without proper paperwork; Mr Williams was not responsible.
- Andrew Goad asked Mr Williams to falsify paperwork for an insurance claim; Mr Williams refused, believing it would be fraud.
- After refusing, Mr Williams was excluded from events, denied a pay rise, placed on furlough while others worked, and subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
- The tribunal found the allegation that Mr Williams wiped his computer was false and manufactured.
- The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair; the decision to dismiss was predetermined.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Williams joined Stow Residential Ltd as a Property Manager.
-
Barcelona trip comment
Andrew Goad made offensive comments about Mr Williams sharing a room with a male colleague; Mr Williams pulled out of the trip.
-
85 Hove Avenue incident
A tenant moved into 85 Hove Avenue without proper paperwork; Mr Williams was not aware until the landlord complained.
-
Request to falsify paperwork
Andrew Goad asked Mr Williams to create false paperwork for an insurance claim; Mr Williams refused.
-
Award ceremony exclusion
Mr Williams was not invited to the company's award ceremony; the tribunal found this not discriminatory.
-
Paris trip and pay rise denial
Mr Williams attended a staff trip to Paris where similar jokes were made; he was the only staff member not given a pay rise.
-
Tiffany resigned
Tiffany, the only other Property Management employee, resigned, leaving Mr Williams alone.
-
Signed off sick with stress
Mr Williams saw his GP and was signed off sick with stress; he stayed at work until 7 February.
-
Andrew Goad contacted Peninsula
Andrew Goad contacted Peninsula to discuss dismissing Mr Williams, saying 'this employee’s time is up.'
-
Return to work refused
Mr Williams offered to return to work but was refused; he was later placed on furlough.
-
Disciplinary hearing started
A disciplinary hearing began; an allegation of bullying was added at the last minute.
-
Dismissal
Mr Williams was dismissed for 'some other substantial reason' (breakdown in trust and confidence).
-
Started consultancy work
Mr Williams began self-employed consultancy work, waiving future loss claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee was unfairly dismissed for 'some other substantial reason' (breakdown in trust and confidence), and whether he suffered discrimination or detriment for refusing to falsify paperwork (a protected disclosure).
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim but dismissed all other claims, including whistleblowing and discrimination.
Key reasons:
- The employer's allegation that the employee wiped his computer was false and manufactured.
- The decision to dismiss was predetermined; the disciplinary process was a sham.
- The reason given for dismissal (breakdown in trust and confidence) was not genuine.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £2,176.00
- Compensatory award: £28,715.35
- Failure to provide written statement: £2,692.32
- Total: £33,583.67
- A financial penalty of £16,791.84 was imposed on the employer (reduced to £8,395.92 if paid within 21 days).
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are asked to do something you believe is illegal, your refusal may be a protected disclosure, but you must ensure it is in the public interest and made to the right person.
- Employers should not rely on manufactured or unsubstantiated allegations to dismiss; tribunals will scrutinise the evidence closely.
- A predetermined outcome in a disciplinary process is a clear sign of procedural unfairness and can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal.
- Failing to provide a written statement of terms can result in additional compensation of up to four weeks' pay.
The human story
This case shows what can happen when a manager's refusal to go along with a questionable request leads to a campaign of exclusion and ultimately dismissal. The employee, a head of property management with four years' service, was asked by a director to create false paperwork to support an insurance claim after a tenant moved into a property without the correct documentation. He refused, believing it would be fraud. From that point on, he was excluded from events, denied a pay rise, placed on furlough while others returned to work, and eventually faced disciplinary proceedings.
The tribunal found that the allegation that he had wiped his computer was false and manufactured. The disciplinary process was a sham, with the decision to dismiss already made before the hearing. The employer's stated reason for dismissal—a breakdown in trust and confidence—was not genuine.
What the employer could have done differently
Had the employer conducted a fair investigation and not predetermined the outcome, the dismissal might have been fair. Instead, they relied on a fabricated allegation and ignored the employee's long service and clean record. The tribunal also noted the employer's failure to provide a written statement of terms, which added to the compensation.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that refusing to participate in potential fraud can be a protected act, but it does not automatically protect you from dismissal. The whistleblowing claims here failed because the tribunal found the disclosure was not made in the public interest. However, the unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the employer's process was so flawed. The case also highlights the importance of keeping records and seeking legal advice early, especially when you suspect you are being treated unfairly.
Similar cases
Pregnant employee dismissed by text message: tribunal awards £30,000
A tribunal has awarded nearly £30,000 to a pregnant employee who was dismissed by text message after complaining about derogatory comments and a failure to provide support with lifting.
Race discrimination and unpaid wages: ACAS code uplift boosts compensation
A former employee of Skins Laser Clinic Ltd was awarded over £21,000 after the tribunal found she was not paid for 142 hours of work and suffered race discrimination. The award was increased by 25% because the employer failed to address her grievance.
Unfair dismissal with ACAS uplift: former employee awarded £14,965
A former employee won nearly £15,000 after being unfairly dismissed by Riley Foods Limited, with the tribunal adding a 25% uplift for the company's failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice.
Constructive dismissal after eight-month wait for grievance outcome
An NHS employee resigned after waiting nearly eight months for her grievance outcome. The tribunal found she was constructively unfairly dismissed and awarded £3,756.60.