Live-in carer wins whistleblowing detriment claim but loses constructive dismissal case
A live-in carer with 32 years' experience won a whistleblowing detriment claim after raising safety concerns, but her constructive dismissal claim failed. She was awarded £1,775.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Mrs Jenkins worked as a live-in carer for Mr Sutton's father from 19 September 2022.
- She raised concerns about locking arrangements, a two-ring hob, a leaky sink, and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
- Mrs Jenkins resigned on 12 November 2022, citing the planned move to a caravan.
- At a meeting on 17 November 2022, Mr Sutton belittled and undermined Mrs Jenkins.
- Mrs Jenkins left abruptly on 18 November 2022 after a heated exchange.
- The tribunal found Mrs Jenkins was an employee, not self-employed.
Timeline
-
Contract signed
Mrs Jenkins signed a 'Contract for Services' to provide care for Mr Sutton's father.
-
Start date
Mrs Jenkins began work and raised concerns about locking, hob, and DoLS.
-
Concerns reiterated
Mrs Jenkins raised concerns again, including a leaky sink.
-
Air tags proposed
Mr Sutton proposed using air tags; Mrs Jenkins felt surveilled.
-
Incident with father
Mr Sutton's father had a challenging episode; meeting requested.
-
Resignation
Mrs Jenkins gave 4 weeks' notice, citing the caravan move.
-
Meeting
A meeting took place where Mrs Jenkins felt belittled and walked out.
-
Final departure
Mrs Jenkins left after a heated argument with Mr Sutton.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the carer was an employee, whether she made protected disclosures about health and safety, and whether she was subjected to detriment or constructively dismissed as a result.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the carer was an employee, not self-employed. It found that she made protected disclosures about locking arrangements, a two-ring hob, a leaky sink, and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. She was subjected to detriment when her employer belittled her and proposed using air tags to monitor her. However, her constructive dismissal claim failed because the employer's conduct did not go to the root of the contract.
Compensation:
- Detriment for protected disclosures: £1,100
- Holiday pay: £675
- Total: £1,775
Lessons & takeaways
- A 'contract for services' does not automatically make you self-employed; tribunals look at the reality of the working relationship.
- Raising genuine health and safety concerns can be a protected disclosure, even if you are not the employee raising them directly.
- To win a constructive dismissal claim, you must show the employer's conduct was so serious it destroyed the trust and confidence in the relationship.
- Detriment claims for whistleblowing do not require you to resign; you can claim for treatment you suffered while still employed.
A carer's concerns lead to a legal battle
This case shows how a live-in carer's attempts to raise safety concerns about her working environment led to a successful claim for whistleblowing detriment, but not for constructive dismissal. The carer, who had 32 years of experience, raised issues about locking arrangements, a two-ring hob, a leaky sink, and concerns about the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for the person she cared for. Instead of addressing these concerns, the employer proposed using air tags to monitor her, which she felt was surveillance.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided the detriment claim by taking the carer's concerns seriously and addressing them properly. Instead, the tribunal found that the employer belittled her in a meeting and created a hostile environment. However, the constructive dismissal claim failed because the employer's conduct, while unpleasant, did not fundamentally breach the contract. The carer resigned after a heated argument, but the tribunal found that the employer's actions did not amount to a repudiatory breach.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights that employees who raise health and safety concerns are protected from detriment, even if they do not succeed in a constructive dismissal claim. It also reinforces that tribunals will look at the substance of the working relationship, not just the label in the contract. For carers and others in similar roles, it is important to document concerns and seek advice before resigning, as constructive dismissal claims have a high threshold.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing constructive dismissal claim fails: tribunal finds no evidence of detriment
A former employee who resigned and claimed constructive dismissal for whistleblowing and health and safety reasons has lost her case after the tribunal found no evidence of detriment or dismissal for those reasons.
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.
Coach driver who resigned over fume fears wins constructive dismissal claim
A coach driver who repeatedly raised concerns about diesel fumes in his minibus and resigned after a poorly handled disciplinary meeting has won his claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
Nurse who raised patient safety concerns wins constructive dismissal claim
A Band 5 Staff Nurse was constructively dismissed after making protected disclosures about patient safety and an alleged assault. The tribunal found the Health Board subjected her to detriments including suspension and a flawed disciplinary process.