School transport driver wins £3,361 for unpaid wages but loses discrimination claim
A tribunal awarded £3,361.96 to a taxi driver who was denied holiday pay and had unauthorised deductions made, but rejected her claims of sex discrimination and detriment for whistleblowing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #worker-status
- #school-transport
- #covid-retention-fund
- #protected-disclosure
- #sex-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #tupe
Key facts
- The claimant drove a school run for the respondent under a contract that required her to provide her own vehicle and pay a weekly settle fee.
- The claimant was found to be a worker but not an employee under a contract of employment.
- The claimant made protected disclosures to the local council about the respondent's handling of Covid retention funds and misclassification of drivers.
- The respondent terminated the claimant's contract after she asserted her employment status in a grievance.
- The tribunal found that the termination was not motivated by the protected disclosures or by the claimant's sex.
- The respondent was ordered to pay £3,361.96 for unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay.
Timeline
-
Started driving for Abbey Taxis
The claimant began driving for the old Abbey companies, with no written contract.
-
Business sale to Vedamain
Vedamain Ltd purchased the Abbey Taxis business; the claimant continued driving school runs.
-
Schools closed due to pandemic
Schools closed; the claimant stopped school runs and received Covid Retention Fund payments.
-
Claimant emailed complaint to council
The claimant sent a written complaint to Cheshire West and Chester Council about Vedamain's handling of CRF and driver status.
-
Claimant stopped working
The claimant did no further work for Vedamain after this date.
-
Meeting and termination
The claimant met with Mr Thomas; he refused to discuss employment status and terminated her contract.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Final judgment
The tribunal awarded £3,361.96 for unauthorised deductions but dismissed detriment and sex discrimination claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the driver was a worker or employee, whether she made protected disclosures, whether she was subjected to detriment or sex discrimination, and whether the employer made unauthorised deductions from wages.
The outcome
The tribunal partly upheld the driver's claims. It found that she was a worker (but not an employee) and that KingKabs Ltd (formerly Vedamain Ltd) had made unauthorised deductions from her wages and failed to pay holiday pay. However, her claims of sex discrimination and detriment for whistleblowing were dismissed because the termination was not motivated by those factors.
Compensation:
- £3,361.96 for unauthorised deductions and unpaid holiday pay
Lessons & takeaways
- Taxi drivers who provide their own vehicle and pay a fee may still be classified as workers, entitling them to holiday pay and the national minimum wage.
- Making a protected disclosure does not automatically protect you from dismissal if the employer can show a different, genuine reason for the termination.
- Claims against previous employers under TUPE must be brought within strict time limits – delays can be fatal.
- Asserting employment status in a grievance can lead to termination, but if the employer's reason is not linked to a protected characteristic or disclosure, the dismissal may be lawful.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the precarious position of many taxi drivers who work under arrangements that blur the line between self-employment and worker status. The driver, who had been doing school runs for nine years, was required to provide her own vehicle and pay a weekly settle fee. Despite this, the tribunal found she was a worker – not an employee – meaning she was entitled to holiday pay and protection from unauthorised deductions, but not the full range of employment rights such as unfair dismissal.
What the losing side could have done differently
KingKabs Ltd could have avoided the £3,361.96 award by properly calculating and paying holiday pay and by not making deductions without the driver's agreement. The company also faced allegations of mishandling Covid retention funds and misclassifying drivers, which led to the driver's protected disclosures. While the tribunal found these disclosures were not the reason for termination, a more transparent approach to pay and status might have prevented the dispute altogether.
Why the result matters for similar claims
For drivers in similar arrangements, this case confirms that worker status can exist even where the driver provides their own vehicle and pays a fee. However, it also shows that winning a worker status claim does not guarantee success on discrimination or whistleblowing grounds – the driver's sex discrimination claim failed because the tribunal accepted that the termination was due to her insistence on discussing employment status, not her sex. The case also serves as a warning about time limits: claims against previous employers under TUPE were dismissed because they were brought too late.
Similar cases
36-year employee dismissed on redundancy: tribunal allows discrimination claims to proceed
A tribunal has allowed age and sex discrimination claims to proceed against a car sales company, while striking out an unfair dismissal claim because the claimant was not employed by the respondent at the time of dismissal.
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Dismissed without notice and discriminated against: a double blow for a former employee
A former employee was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed without notice, and discriminated against on grounds of sex. The tribunal awarded £16,208.68, including an uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS code.
Tutor unfairly dismissed after employer mistakenly accepted resignation
A tutor with three years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer wrongly believed she had resigned. The tribunal awarded £1,499.54 for breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages.